Imperial knights formation.

[Utsujin]

Are there only two formation s for knights? I hot both downloaded. Are they ok in standard games or campaign amd apocalypse only?

[librisrouge]

The only legal Knight formation that I know about for 40k is Adamantine Lance out of the Red Waaaaagh! book. I know that one of the Warzone books had a formation, Pandorax perhaps? All of the warzone formations are apocalypse only though so it isn't legal for standard 40k. If you know of another formation please let me know, I'd love to hear about it.

[Utsujin]

I thought all formations were legal in standard 40k? People used apocalypse formations in a regular game.

[librisrouge]

Prior to 7th Edition, GW had a lot of books that had 'formations' in them (the battlezone books specifically.) These are Apocalypse Formations as opposed to Formations. Apocalypse Formations are only allowed in apocalypse games and not standard 40k, iirc.

[CommodusXIII]

The only legal Knight formation that I know about for 40k is Adamantine Lance out of the Red Waaaaagh! book.

 

Correct, and it happens to be the nastiest of the two.  I haven't been able to justify using it against an innocent quite yet.

[Utsujin]

So when my friends used carnival of pain from the apocalypse book in a normal game they cheated..?

[CommodusXIII]

Cheated is a charged word, but that was definitely incorrect.

[jeffersonian000]

There is currently a very blurred line between 7th Ed formation use and what makes Apocalypse unique. At the moment, one could saying any formation and/or unit is legal in any game with opponent permission. There are layers, though. If a unit or formation has an Apoc stamp or is found in an Apoc suppliment, you could say, "sorry, I'd like to stay with official 40k units and supplements, no Apoc stuff". The game is there for you to have fun, just one it is for your opponent.

 

SJ

[Brother Paen]

Can I still just field an army entirely made of Knights? ...w/ 1.Lancer?...or 1 Castigator?

[Utsujin]

You still have to take paladins and errants.  They're still very good for what they do to boot.  You can take lancers or castigators in number for every number of paladins or errants you take.

[Brother Paen]

Cool. I've got 3 Paladins, and 2 Errants for most things. I've recently converted 1 Lancer and a I am converting 1 Castigator to  plug into games where needed..

[librisrouge]

Sweet! Anywhere we can check out your conversions and such?

[Brother Paen]

I'll try to post pics over on Dakkadakka in the gallery, just search Brother Paen.  I have not yet ( though many have tried to help me) figured out how to post here on B&C.

[Nusquam]

Cool. I've got 3 Paladins, and 2 Errants for most things. I've recently converted 1 Lancer and a I am converting 1 Castigator to  plug into games where needed..

 

That was true when only the Lancer existed and the rule required you to have Paladins and Errants verbatim. Now the rule reads as you can't have more Lancers, Acherons and Castigators(individually) than knights of any other kind. As opposed to a rule that might read you can't have more Cerastus-Pattern Knights than knights of any other kind(Questoris)

 

So you can have 1 Paladin, 1 Lancer and 1 Castigator; here you don't have more Lancers(1) than any other kind(1 Paladin, 1 Cas) and more Castigators(1) than any other kind(1 Paladin, 1 Lancer).

 

Or 1 Lancer and 1 Acheron. Here you don't have more Lancers(1) than any other kind(1 Acheron) and you don't have more Acherons(1) than any other kind(1 Lancer). You still can't have just one Lancer/Ach/Cas, but that's why the Cerastus are LoW as well.

 

The rule itself is strange and you would think it would be more of a hard limit; such as Cerastus-Patterns can't exceed 50% of your points total.