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.

Knights & Titans - do they have a place on the general 40k gaming battlefield? (excluding Apocalypse)

Titans, no. Some will argue that Knights skew the meta too much towards anti-tank weapons and I would mostly agree. I'm fine with one super-heavy model in 1500+ point games, but more than one knight does change the game too much IMO.

 Gnarlly wrote:
Titans, no. Some will argue that Knights skew the meta too much towards anti-tank weapons and I would mostly agree. I'm fine with one super-heavy model in 1500+ point games, but more than one knight does change the game too much IMO.

Sounds like a reasonable position.

They're just big tanks.

ERJAK wrote:
They're just big tanks.

With 20+ wounds, very good invulnerable saves, more extreme weapons, excellent shooting and in melee, the ability to walk in and out of combat with little penalty, plus an assortment of "house" tactics, relics and stratagems designed to buff those specific models to sometimes absurd levels. Most big tanks don't have all that as well.

In the normal 40K ruleset? No, ALL superheavies and non-VTOL flyers do not fit the game and are shoehorned in. The ruleset would greatly benefit if they were restricted to the Apocalypse ruleset.

Hell, I think Guard getting 3 tanks for one Heavy slot is bad for the game. 40K was designed for infantry with a smattering of vehicles and tanks and has been stretched and skewed by the allure of “big kits”.

ERJAK wrote:
They're just big tanks.

I can see your point. But bearing in mind most 40k armies aren't built to deal solely with big tanks, do they skew things too much?

 Stormonu wrote:
In the normal 40K ruleset? No, ALL superheavies and non-VTOL flyers do not fit the game and are shoehorned in. The ruleset would greatly benefit if they were restricted to the Apocalypse ruleset.

Hell, I think Guard getting 3 tanks for one Heavy slot is bad for the game. 40K was designed for infantry with a smattering of vehicles and tanks and has been stretched and skewed by the allure of “big kits”.

This.

The big kits are great for modelling and painting... but for the game they are very bad as they warp the scope of the game, and once that trend has started it is very hard to go back.

40k works as a platoon level game. Apocalypse works as a mass combat game where big kits are fine.

 Stormonu wrote:
40K was designed for infantry with a smattering of vehicles and tanks and has been stretched and skewed by the allure of “big kits”.

Agreed. GW would be better adapting standard 40k to fit more within its three levels of games: KillTeam for squad vs. squad, 40k for infantry units and a few supporting mechanized units, and Apocalypse for anything, everything, and the kitchen sink above 1500+ points or so.

 Gnarlly wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
They're just big tanks.

With 20+ wounds, very good invulnerable saves, more extreme weapons, excellent shooting and in melee, the ability to walk in and out of combat with little penalty, plus an assortment of "house" tactics, relics and stratagems designed to buff those specific models to sometimes absurd levels. Most big tanks don't have all that as well.

I dunno, I look at something like an IH repulsor executioner, then I look at a knight, and I can't in good conscience say I won't accept the latter if I will accept the former in my game.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
They're just big tanks.

With 20+ wounds, very good invulnerable saves, more extreme weapons, excellent shooting and in melee, the ability to walk in and out of combat with little penalty, plus an assortment of "house" tactics, relics and stratagems designed to buff those specific models to sometimes absurd levels. Most big tanks don't have all that as well.

I dunno, I look at something like an IH repulsor executioner, then I look at a knight, and I can't in good conscience say I won't accept the latter if I will accept the former in my game.

"Most big tanks"

As a Chaos Knights player I think it's fine competitively. However in a pick up game I tend to not use them. Unless my opponent is using some form of super heavy.

I don't mind facing one Knight. I usually bring plenty of anti-tank firepower, and my Cadians have sometimes managed to down a Knight in their first shooting phase. However I also recognize that not all armies are as good as the Imperial Guard at killing big stuff from a long distance.

The problem with all-Knight armies is that unless your army is specifically tailored to destroy them, you will have many units that are practically useless except for holding objectives. When players build a generic list, they expect to be facing both infantry and vehicles/monsters.

Most importantly, there is the fun factor. I have no doubt that my Cadians could win a battle against a single mighty Titan, because I have many infantry units with lascannons, forcing the Titan to overkill just a couple of units each round while I whittle it down. To a Titan, fighting my army is like trying to kill a swarm of bees with a handgun. However, this game would not be fun for either of us. My opponent would get to play about 5 percent of the time, while I play the other 95 percent. The game would also be devoid of any meaningful tactics or decisions. "Who shall I shoot this round? How about... um... literally the only model I am fighting?"


In short:

 Gnarlly wrote:
GW would be better adapting standard 40k to fit more within its three levels of games: KillTeam for squad vs. squad, 40k for infantry units and a few supporting mechanized units, and Apocalypse for anything, everything, and the kitchen sink above 1500+ points or so.

.

I think it's a matter of just being sensible and thoughtful about how you use them.

Titans are priced out of 40k - at least at the level most games are played at, and for the most part probably aren't worth their points anyway.

Knights are a genie which is well and truly out of the bottle. It's likely fair to say that most factions have a 'knight-like' unit (though how viable they are depends on the rules of that day), and I think the genuinely do add something to the game as a whole. Today's 40K isn't the same 'mostly infantry with a few tanks' game that it used to be. But we're free to play it on that basis still if we choose.

I love Knights, and run a Chaos Knight Household. But in my games I'm clear about that beforehand - it IS an issue to turn up with a Knight list to play an opponant that was expecting a less 'extreme' army. Likewise, if I've arranged a game vs say my friends Blood Angels army, I won't tend to run screens. I lose a LOT more, but it respects the way he wants to play and the kind of game he wants to have as well as letting me enjoy my favourite faction. I'm not saying this is how it should be done obviously, just that there are ways to compromise when using these units.

Obviously this doesn't touch on the competitive scene at all, but frankly we ought to expect to see the most extreme lists available in that environment anyway.

 Gnarlly wrote:
Titans, no. Some will argue that Knights skew the meta too much towards anti-tank weapons and I would mostly agree. I'm fine with one super-heavy model in 1500+ point games, but more than one knight does change the game too much IMO.

So you're saying that a pair of Armigers change the game to much?

Or would you like to be more specific in wich knights you're complaining about?

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
40K was designed for infantry with a smattering of vehicles and tanks and has been stretched and skewed by the allure of “big kits”.

Agreed. GW would be better adapting standard 40k to fit more within its three levels of games: KillTeam for squad vs. squad, 40k for infantry units and a few supporting mechanized units, and Apocalypse for anything, everything, and the kitchen sink above 1500+ points or so.

This is the correct answer.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
40K was designed for infantry with a smattering of vehicles and tanks and has been stretched and skewed by the allure of “big kits”.

Agreed. GW would be better adapting standard 40k to fit more within its three levels of games: KillTeam for squad vs. squad, 40k for infantry units and a few supporting mechanized units, and Apocalypse for anything, everything, and the kitchen sink above 1500+ points or so.

This is the correct answer.

But it really isn't.

40K second edition say, might well have been designed along those lines, but we play a different game in the same setting now. 40K eighth edition was designed from the ground up to include units like Knights. 40K isn't infantry and a few tanks any more - though you're quite free to play it that way in your own personal games if you wish.

And that's kinda the point. Some of us like the larger units, others don't so much. The rules are more than flexible enough to accomodate both preferences though. Nothing needs to be removed from the game by some greater mandate - just play using the units you wish, vs the opponants that suit you, or who feel the same. That won't help you in tournaments of course, but Knights are the least of your worries there these days...

I dont really think GW is 100% sure on the scale they want yet. If they did they would have reduced the options on units like guardsmen or space marines or any 0-5pt upgrades on single models. Having different rules for power weapons make no sense in a game with 700pts knights and 200+ model hordes.

Why bother with tiny tiny details like axe vs sword vs maul vs lance vs club if they have built the game around huge knights walking around. Not like its gonna matter if you have a maul over a sword on your squad leader against enemies like that. If they reduced those tiny pointless options and abstracted them for the new huge scale I think the game would be better. But GW is trying to have both with a very bare bones rule set.

No knights should be in a 2000- 40k game. Those represent small skirmishes. Its ok for 2.5k or 3k.

 StrayIight wrote:
I think it's a matter of just being sensible and thoughtful about how you use them.

Titans are priced out of 40k - at least at the level most games are played at, and for the most part probably aren't worth their points anyway.

Knights are a genie which is well and truly out of the bottle. It's likely fair to say that most factions have a 'knight-like' unit (though how viable they are depends on the rules of that day), and I think the genuinely do add something to the game as a whole. Today's 40K isn't the same 'mostly infantry with a few tanks' game that it used to be. But we're free to play it on that basis still if we choose.

I love Knights, and run a Chaos Knight Household. But in my games I'm clear about that beforehand - it IS an issue to turn up with a Knight list to play an opponant that was expecting a less 'extreme' army. Likewise, if I've arranged a game vs say my friends Blood Angels army, I won't tend to run screens. I lose a LOT more, but it respects the way he wants to play and the kind of game he wants to have as well as letting me enjoy my favourite faction. I'm not saying this is how it should be done obviously, just that there are ways to compromise when using these units.

Obviously this doesn't touch on the competitive scene at all, but frankly we ought to expect to see the most extreme lists available in that environment anyway.

I still think knights are a design failure, rather than a Rules Failure on there own. With good rules and a proper support structure, they would have been way more interesting and play better in the meta. GW just broke way to many of there own rules.
And now they here to stay, But also a good reason a lot of players around me choose not to bother with 40k now.

Knights are one of the primary reasons why 40k has had a downward spiral since 5th. Every list either is "Bring Knights" or "Tool Explicitly To Take Down Knights", which means "Don't Bring Knights Bring Normal Tanks Instead" lists are unviable, because everyone else's list can wipe the floor with you.

The whole concept of Superheavies in normal 40k is a bad idea and should be scrapped. I would love for TITANIC Lords of War to be removed from Matched Play at the very least.

 StrayIight wrote:
40K eighth edition was designed from the ground up to include units like Knights.

No, it was not. 8E is just another iteration of the 3E rules. Knights and flyers are still visibly a poorly tacked-on addition to the game, and their implementation under the D6 rules sticks out like a sore thumb, and invalidates a large swath of GW's model line without controversial "any model can wound anything" band-aids.

Yes, we got stats for them, and they can still be used in the game by those who do enjoy them. But the game would be far better off if they removed from the normal 40K game to the likes of the Apocalypse rules or a format that de-emphasized infantry and favored monsters, heavy vehicles and the like. Something akin to Bolt Action's Tank War or X-Wing's Epic format.

 Stormonu wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
40K eighth edition was designed from the ground up to include units like Knights.

No, it was not. 8E is just another iteration of the 3E rules. Knights and flyers are still visibly a poorly tacked-on addition to the game, and their implementation under the D6 rules sticks out like a sore thumb, and invalidates a large swath of GW's model line without controversial "any model can wound anything" band-aids.

Yes, we got stats for them, and they can still be used in the game by those who do enjoy them. But the game would be far better off if they removed from the normal 40K game to the likes of the Apocalypse rules or a format that de-emphasized infantry and favored monsters, heavy vehicles and the like. Something akin to Bolt Action's Tank War or X-Wing's Epic format.

Respectfully, I disagree. You can call anything wounding anything a band-aid, and I get that doing so helps prop up your personal view.

You can also see it as a core part of the design philosophy behind 8th editions rules. One that allows large units and infantry to play in the same space when costed appropriately. GW's game designers certainly see it that way.

8th isn't an iteration of 3rd edition, BOTH are arguably an iteration of 1st. But why does that matter? As long sufficient changes are in place to support whatever elements are in the modern game, we're good. I'm not seeing anyone having any serious difficulty dealing with Knights in a competitive setting (and you aren't forced to face them elsewhere). Hell, the troublesome units and rules right now there, all surround infantry units! Knights were only ever truly problematic with regard to ONE unit, using ONE specific stratagem, supported by other units to make it work.

So what's the real issue beyond it being a personal preference to have a more infantry centric game? (And you still can in all your personal games). Where are these rules that break when a Knight-type unit is place on the table? I'm not seeing it beyond the issue of 'my lasguns don't hurt it the way I'd like them to' - an issue that's neatly sidestepped with a little application of curteousy and common sense right?

 StrayIight wrote:
I think it's a matter of just being sensible and thoughtful about how you use them.

Titans are priced out of 40k - at least at the level most games are played at, and for the most part probably aren't worth their points anyway.

Knights are a genie which is well and truly out of the bottle. It's likely fair to say that most factions have a 'knight-like' unit (though how viable they are depends on the rules of that day), and I think the genuinely do add something to the game as a whole. Today's 40K isn't the same 'mostly infantry with a few tanks' game that it used to be. But we're free to play it on that basis still if we choose.

I love Knights, and run a Chaos Knight Household. But in my games I'm clear about that beforehand - it IS an issue to turn up with a Knight list to play an opponant that was expecting a less 'extreme' army. Likewise, if I've arranged a game vs say my friends Blood Angels army, I won't tend to run screens. I lose a LOT more, but it respects the way he wants to play and the kind of game he wants to have as well as letting me enjoy my favourite faction. I'm not saying this is how it should be done obviously, just that there are ways to compromise when using these units.

Obviously this doesn't touch on the competitive scene at all, but frankly we ought to expect to see the most extreme lists available in that environment anyway.

The fact you feel the need to forewarn people you're bringing Knights strongly suggests there's a problem with having them in the game. I don't think Superheavies or Aircraft should be in the game at all. Knights in particular have the problem that there's not really any counterplay beyond "kill them". If the game meaningfully rewarded taking objectives over killing things, or you could tie units up in combat to prevent them having an effect on the battle that would be good, but Knights don't really care about any of that stuff. They can freely walk out of combat and have enough firepower to delete units on objectives quite easily. They even get a special rule for holding objectives.

Depends on the missions your playing, and how you score VPs.

Knight do damage really, really well. But holding multiple objectives for consecutive turns? Not so much.

Seems it only takes an early loss of one to put a player on the backfoot. Yes it takes a lot to do that - but then, there are only so many models for your opponent to choose from in terms of target priority.

I'll agree that Titanic units at sub 1500 are really difficult to deal with and probably should not be brought without forewarning. 1500-2000 lists should be able to decently handle 1, but still can make for a really lopsided game... but I think at that point level, those kind of interactions can happen in many different circumstances.

And I don't care if it is the slightly-better-than-dreadnought Armigers or not. Armigers are the gateway to the bigger problem, and they should have to succumb to the same treatments as their bigger brothers. I don't think they are particularly burdensome, but again, they're a gateway to the problem.

Once you rise into Apoc territory of 2001-2500+ and players know it is time to bring the biggest and baddest they can field... fine, whatever, but at least you should know what you're walking into.

Knights overall have seriously warped the environment, and not having them on our tables (I think we have a Wraith Knight, Valiant, and Baneblade between the three of us... and we have a social contract to not surprise a player with a super heavy out of courtesy) has helped us not fall into the "arms race" scenarios that permeate competitive play. None of our Titans are particularly dominating, but they still have significant impacts on the game. We also play more narrative focused, and while troop movements and infantry sizes may be harder to track accurately... it should be a darn easy thing to detect a 30'+ metal monstrosity lumbering towards you.

But hey, compete your way. Play your way. Leverage that social contract to get games that you want to play in and both players agree are fair to each other (proper terrain layout, unit skewing, all sorts of these problems go away when you simply talk it out). When you go into competition... well, you're giving that social contract away and letting someone else define the terms of your game, and you kinda get what you signed up for.

edit: finished a thought that I interrupted

Slipspace wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
I think it's a matter of just being sensible and thoughtful about how you use them.

Titans are priced out of 40k - at least at the level most games are played at, and for the most part probably aren't worth their points anyway.

Knights are a genie which is well and truly out of the bottle. It's likely fair to say that most factions have a 'knight-like' unit (though how viable they are depends on the rules of that day), and I think the genuinely do add something to the game as a whole. Today's 40K isn't the same 'mostly infantry with a few tanks' game that it used to be. But we're free to play it on that basis still if we choose.

I love Knights, and run a Chaos Knight Household. But in my games I'm clear about that beforehand - it IS an issue to turn up with a Knight list to play an opponant that was expecting a less 'extreme' army. Likewise, if I've arranged a game vs say my friends Blood Angels army, I won't tend to run screens. I lose a LOT more, but it respects the way he wants to play and the kind of game he wants to have as well as letting me enjoy my favourite faction. I'm not saying this is how it should be done obviously, just that there are ways to compromise when using these units.

Obviously this doesn't touch on the competitive scene at all, but frankly we ought to expect to see the most extreme lists available in that environment anyway.

The fact you feel the need to forewarn people you're bringing Knights strongly suggests there's a problem with having them in the game. I don't think Superheavies or Aircraft should be in the game at all. Knights in particular have the problem that there's not really any counterplay beyond "kill them". If the game meaningfully rewarded taking objectives over killing things, or you could tie units up in combat to prevent them having an effect on the battle that would be good, but Knights don't really care about any of that stuff. They can freely walk out of combat and have enough firepower to delete units on objectives quite easily. They even get a special rule for holding objectives.

I do see your point, but my reasons for forewarning a player in a casual environment is more about respect, rather than believing Knights to be truly problematic. I don't think there is evidence to really support that.

In a casual game, you can't always rely on the other player bringing a hard TaC list. While all armies are more than capable of dealing with Knights, it's no fun to not have those tools available to you in a casual environment because you had no idea you needed them.

As I'm sure you'll agree though, that isn't a situation that's limited to merely Knights. There are way, way worse offenders - but they don't always have the same target painted on them by some parts of this community.

There are many ways to counterplay Knights beyond killing them also. They *suck* at the objective game for example. And there's no special rule to alleviate that beyond say a poor relic option that provides one unit with Ob sec, and a Freeblade trait that does the same (while forcing you to give up the far superior household rules).

Purifying Tempest wrote:
I'll agree that Titanic units at sub 1500 are really difficult to deal with and probably should not be brought without forewarning. 1500-2000 lists should be able to decently handle 1, but still can make for a really lopsided game... but I think at that point level, those kind of interactions can happen in many different circumstances.

And I don't care if it is the slightly-better-than-dreadnought Armigers or not. Armigers are the gateway to the bigger problem, and they should have to succumb to the same treatments as their bigger brothers. I don't think they are particularly burdensome, but again, they're a gateway to the problem.

Once you rise into Apoc territory of 2001-2500+ and players know it is time to bring the biggest and baddest they can field... fine, whatever, but at least you should know what you're walking into.

Knights overall have seriously warped the environment, and not having them on our tables (I think we have a Wraith Knight, Valiant, and Baneblade between the three of us... and we have a social contract to not surprise a player with a super heavy out of courtesy) has helped us not fall into the "arms race" scenarios that permeate competitive play. None of our Titans are particularly dominating, but they still have significant impacts on the game. We also play more narrative focused, and while troop movements and infantry sizes may be harder to track accurately... it should be a darn easy thing to detect a 30'+ metal monstrosity lumbering towards you.

But hey, compete your way. Play your way. Leverage that social contract to get games that you want to play in and both players agree are fair to each other (proper terrain layout, unit skewing, all sorts of these problems go away when you simply talk it out). When you go into competition... well, you're giving that social contract away and letting someone else define the terms of your game, and you kinda get what you signed up for.

edit: finished a thought that I interrupted

I have an incredibly hard time trying to figure out how Armigers cause the same problems knights do. Speaking objectively, Armigers and especially Hel...vigers, god damn I hate GW's new naming conventions, Helmicopyrighters are very much just regular vehicles. They're T7 3+ 5++ with 12 wounds. They degrade. They don't fall back out of melee. The armiger can either attack *exactly* like a basic marine dreadnought at S12 Ap-3 D3 4A or it has a S6 AP-2 D1 8A version, which is hardly earth-shattering. A Helmgmgjhghfh is armed with two predator autocannons. There are...many, many basic tanks that do similar stuff to these guys. I wouldn't turn my nose up at a Leman Russ, a Fire Prism, or a Redemptor dreadnought at 1500 points.

That said, I think that there is a pretty good analogy to be made with that "The Scrub" copy-paste thing that always gets thrown around in discussions like these, where taking over 1/2 of your points in a list as any one given "thing" is kind of similar to choosing a character in a fighting game and just using the same move over and over and over again.

Is it something that whiny people will claim is "unfair" and make all these moralistic claims about and a skilled player could beat without much trouble? Yes.

It is something that, if you're really actually honest with yourself as a competitive player, you would really enjoy playing against game after game after game as much as someone who varies up their moves and characters?

I'm gonna guess no. I'm gonna guess, even if you are the least scrubby, most competitive upstanding person ever, you would quickly get bored of a game where your opponent just chose Ryu and threw hadookens at you (sorry, I don't actually play street fighter, it's just the example used in the Scrub thing) and you beat him over and over and over with your superior competitive play.

I've never lost a game to pure knights in a competitive setting. That's not a brag, it's just a very common meta build in my area that you plan against by bringing enough antitank stuff to kill a few and deny the others from objectives all game. If I am going to play against pure or mostly knights in a casual pickup game, I will probably either decline or make some zany narrative mission to mix up the scenario and make it different. I've learned everything I can learn against that setup, just like I've learned everything I can learn against pure space marine aura parking lot full of tanks and Guilliman, and pure green tide ork/nid nothing but swarm infantry that just runs at you.

Skew lists are one note. your opponents will absolutely get bored of it very quickly. Your opponents will get bored of any single setup if you just bring it forever ad nauseum - I know one guy who's been playing the exact same not overly competitive Catachan Guard+Admech+1 Knight 2,000 point setup for like 3 years now, and he struggles to find opponents among longtime players, just because you can only play vs the same thing so many times before it becomes uninteresting. But skew lists will speed that staling process up exponentially. And in a hobby where the models cost this much, you probably want to avoid this.

The difficulty of Knights is that an army that's prepared to handle T8/3+/4++ models with 24-28 Wounds can remove T7/3+ models with 10 Wounds by sneezing on them. They force the meta to skew so far towards anti-vehicle offense that more basic vehicles like Predators and Chimeras with no Invulnerable save become easily-removed tissue paper so you can't really use them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The difficulty of Knights is that an army that's prepared to handle T8/3+/4++ models with 24-28 Wounds can remove T7/3+ models with 10 Wounds by sneezing on them. They force the meta to skew so far towards anti-vehicle offense that more basic vehicles like Predators and Chimeras with no Invulnerable save become easily-removed tissue paper so you can't really use them.

I mean, except when they don't, like now when we are in a pretty non-knight meta that is extremely heavy on vehicles.

If anything, flyers are the things skewing the meta right now far more than knights. I see the occasional one knight in Chaos lists, but like 50% of lists overall right now are loyalist marine lists kept completely pure to preserve the super doctrines, and most of them rely either on the repulsor chassis or flyers.