Discussing the 'fear of Knights'

[Frostglaive]

A while back, I started up a thread about the hate and fear towards Knights. I wanted to bring it up once more considering we're about to be in the spotlight Saturday with our new codex.

 

So for those of you who are new to Knights, or just 40k in general, here's a little backstory: Long ago, back in the dark days of 6th edition, Imperial Knights were released as a new army. They were major game-changers, since there really was nothing like them at the time. And because of them being such game-changers, and how powerful they were at the time, a lot of people hated Knights. Somebody would run a 1500pt pure Knight list, and their opponent would quit right then and there. People didn't know how to deal with them, just flat out couldn't, or didn't want to. 7th edition hits, they were still pretty disgusting, but a lot more manageable. But people still hated or feared them. 8th hits, Index is released, Knights are pretty easy to deal with now. Over-costed, under-performed, whatever. Not too scary anymore unless you had absolutely no anti-tank. But the damage was already done. The stigma was there.

 

Now before I go on, everything I just mentioned was either experienced first-hand in my local meta, or just what I've found on various forums over the years. I know not everyone is like this.

 

That being said, there is hate and fear towards Knights out there. Maybe it's just because people can't afford to buy their own or can't buy things to counter them. Maybe it's because of that stigma that's been ingrained into them. Could be anything. And that's still there even though at this moment (before the codex drops), Knights aren't all that great. And now, with all the awesome stuff we're about to get with the codex, Knights are about to get pretty freakin' scary and awesome.

 

The reason I'm posting all of this is because I'm about to run my own Household. I have Knights, but almost never bring them outside of apocalypse games, or the occasional Crusader in a 2,000pt game. I want to run a pure Knight army. But I'm concerned that, with all the hate Knights get in my local meta, I won't be able to play them. Or I'll be labeled as "That Guy" for running a Knight army. I like my giant robots! I want to run them when I can, but I want to have fun as well as my opponent having fun. I don't want there to be a bunch of hate towards my army to where I can't play them anymore with my group of friends or the newcomers to the store.

 

I'm wondering what your guys' experiences are with all of this. Is that stigma in your local meta as well? How are you going to handle it if you run pure Knights as well? I want to hear everyone's opinions on this.

 

Also, if I'm coming across as whiny or anything of that sort, I do apologize. That is not my intention.

[Charlo]

8th is a different ball game entirely. It's a lot fairer when even the humble lasgun can chip a wound off the big guys.

 

Admittedly it's scary facing down Knights and you still need some dedicated AT to bring them down, but they actually have comparatively little shooting for their points.

[MagicHat]

Tournament rules my club uses have highlander (max 2 of the same troop unit, 1 for other unit types unless you have taken one of each unit in a slot, so can't take 2 kastelan robot units, unless you also have 1 Onager)

Also, only 1 detachment.

No LoW detachments, although supreme command is allowed.

 

Last tournament cancelled due to low interest.

 

There is a clear bias against knights though.

[Stray]

I'm... frustrated by this argument and attitude myself in truth.

 

In 7th, Knights were a problem for some lists because they were utterly immune to certain weapon profiles. You had to know they were coming so you could adjust lists accordingly.

 

In 8th? We can't even reliably capture objectives without allied units.

 

My issue is with the idea that anyone, should be able to influence or out right attempt to control what another player brings to the table. I love Knights - many of us do. We're not playing them because we see them as 'super units', we're playing them because we just love Knights. And up to now in 8th, they're been bad competitively for the most part.

 

Personally, I'd play anyone whatever they bring. Some games will be more fun than others. But all will be an enjoyable experience if you go into them with the right mindset. I certainly would never say to someone 'No, you're bringing Alaitoc Eldar, so I won't play you'. I dunno, it just feels childish and more about wanting to 'win' than just having a good time playing regardless of the result.

 

So if someone said 'I won't play against you, you bought Knights' - Knights being a completely legal army in 40K, I'd make a mental note of that person, avoid them in future, and find someone a bit more open minded to play with.

[Frostglaive]

I've told everyone in my group I will fight anything and everything, so long as it is a legal army. The only thing I ever ask is how competitive they are willing to be in our game. That way if they're fairly new I don't end up bringing a list to utterly curb stomp them.

 

A problem I'm facing in my meta is that, while some of us feel the same as I do, others are more close-minded. Granted, a couple of them are because they can't really AFFORD to be more competitive with what they have so I give them the benefit of the doubt. But i get those guys who refuse to fight LoWs, mainly Knights, or just flat out whine and complain when I bring them and they do well.

 

I'm getting to the point where I'm more like you, Stray, in mindset. They refuse to fight or they want to whine about it, I just won't play them anymore. I play Knights because I love Knights. They are gorgeous models with some awesome fluff, and they are just fun to run. I want to enjoy them, not never be able to play them because someone doesn't like Knights or whatever.

[Mushkilla]

Yeah knights are not a big deal. My Tzeentch/Thousand sons army would just slaughter most pure knight lists I can come up with. They struggle with objectives, board presence, mortal wounds, psychic powers, and alpha strike. Even with the awesome new codex, I know pure knights is going to be a challenge to play at a competitive level. A tau fire warrior wounds a knight on 5s, with his basic gun!

 

They are also surprisingly affordable in monetary terms. Three knights runs at about 1500 points and if you get one Dominus and 2 Questoris, with the renegade box that's £220 for a 1500 point army. That's before you go for third party retailers who often have a discount of 15-20%! I can't think of any army that is more affordable.

 

I'm playing knights because I love the fluff, they have gorgeous and iconic models (they really capture that late 80s early 90s 40k feel), they are relatively affordable, they don't have many model choices and one kit builds 5 of those, they are easy to transport, quick to play (no slow play here), and are just epic.

[Tyriks]

In 7th when I brought a Knight I encouraged people who lacked anti-tank guns to just ignore it. When people did they got over their fear of them. Now in 8th I only have to warn people if I'm bringing more than one, because one is pretty easy to deal with. Salamanders are a popular opponent and their las devs rarely fail to drop a knight with all the bonuses and rerolls they can have. As a result the only person locally who still fears them is the guy who plays Ynarri because my War Convocation was the only thing he never tabled in 7th, and I don't feel bad about that at all.

[Stray]

Yeah, that's it.

 

I mean there are always exceptions, if someone was willing to talk about things, compromise etc, I'd not be so black and white as to label that person as a 'problem'. There are valid reasons why a new player say might be intimidated by a bunch of LoW's - but I'd be willing to talk them through the game and show them where our weaknesses are in that scenario.

 

It's just the closeminded that rub me up the wrong way. It's much the same as those that would refuse a game with you because you bought a FW model. They exist. I don't understand where the distinction is personally. FW is a division of GW. They're no more or less legal than Citadel miniatures. But that attitude is out there sadly :/

[Mushkilla]

In 7th when I brought a Knight I encouraged people who lacked anti-tank guns to just ignore it.

 

Reminds me of one of my games from 7th edition against knights (battle report here if people are interested: http://www.thedarkcity.net/t11863-br4-the-repugnant-ramblers-vs-imperial-knights-1250pts). Man stomp attacks were so broken.

 

You really don't need to be able to hurt knights to win the mission, and that was in 7th when they were really strong.

[Lysere]

The one aspect the fear of knights that annoys me the most is the same as with Forgeworld. There are perfectly valid situations to not want to deal with it but when the person complaining is using only the best units they have and potentially broken combos of their own I'd honestly tell them tough luck.

 

Thankfully no one locally is like that for me and people have been pretty quick to accept my knight and are fine facing them as an army even.

[Tiger9gamer]

Honestly, I can't get it. I played a game with a warhound once and it died to bolters when I played against salamanders so I know titans can still just die to overwhelming firepower, and yet people still seem weary of them. Eh, maybe time will tell if they still are.

 

All I know is that I bring an imperial knight to almost every game above 1250 points, and people don't have a problem with it. Heck, I want people to shoot at it, as that means all my vanguard and onagers are relatively untouched until it goes down!

[Vel'Cona]

I do understand that this thought process exists, and it's a shame because IK represent a unique challenge both for the player and the opponent, and are extremely characterful and fun (or at least, they should be played that way).  8th edition has changed the paradigm somewhat with "anything can wound" being a thing, and with the prevalence of numbers over fancy stuff (boys before toys, as they say) IK in general are actually a difficult army to wrap one's head around.

 

The issue, I think, is that nearly any army in 8th can be played to the extent that it isn't enjoyable to face (with notable exceptions), especially with "faction soup" being the easy competitive choice.  IK are no different in that respect, as CP farming is definitely an element of the game and IK need it as much as any army in the "competitive meta" (a term I do not enjoy).  With that in mind, I think the stigma of IK from prior editions is generally unfounded, and it behooves the IK player to remind their opponent that the game has changed.  Perhaps make a note of the fact that mortal wounds, torrent of fire and bubble-wrapping are legit strategies, and remind potential IK-phobic opponents how much you spend per model whenever their hackles get raised :P

[ImperialSquishiness]

Having not played since 4th edition before starting 8th, Knights weren't a thing then. But if superheavies I come across in my local metas, Knights are my preference to deal with over say Baneblade variants.

 

Apart from a crusader a stock Knight is gonna have 1 gun that will either chew up infantry or tanks and a rocket pod variety/AA autocannon along with the odd stubber.

 

A baneblade by example has a big gun that will mulch anything, a demolisher cannon for short range anti armour, heavy bolters and an autocannon. That's before you add sponsons and add more heavy bolters and lascannons.

 

A Knight can embe ignored until it starts to gear up for a charge. A baneblade does not want to be ignored as it can take out half an army on it's own and that's not counting CC stratagems it can use

[sneakybamsen]

Having not played since 4th edition before starting 8th, Knights weren't a thing then. But if superheavies I come across in my local metas, Knights are my preference to deal with over say Baneblade variants.

 

Apart from a crusader a stock Knight is gonna have 1 gun that will either chew up infantry or tanks and a rocket pod variety/AA autocannon along with the odd stubber.

 

A baneblade by example has a big gun that will mulch anything, a demolisher cannon for short range anti armour, heavy bolters and an autocannon. That's before you add sponsons and add more heavy bolters and lascannons.

 

A Knight can embe ignored until it starts to gear up for a charge. A baneblade does not want to be ignored as it can take out half an army on it's own and that's not counting CC stratagems it can use

 

And they are (were at least) cheaper than knights. I have tried facing 2 baneblades (different chassis versions) and a shadowsword. That was a mess for me.

[ImperialSquishiness]

A shadowsword with 2 sets of sponsons runs you about as many points as a crusader on index prices. For that you get 3d3 shots that will destroy a Knight (+1 to hit titanic, S16 ap-5 D2d6, rerolling failed wounds and rerolling damage against titanic), 30 heavy bolter shots and 4 lascannons. The lascannons on their own can ruin almost any vehicle in one volley...

[Karhedron]

My club has a lot of older players so FW and Super-heavies are still treated with a certain amount of suspicion. It may not be entirely fair but we have to remember the history of these things and that the game is supposed to be fun to play. Things are a lot better balanced in 8th but we have to remember that for a significant chunk of their history, Knights and FW were NOT fun to play against if you came up against them unexpectedly, especially with certain armies.

 

Prejudices remain, long after original cause has disappeared.

[jeffersonian000]

 

My club has a lot of older players so FW and Super-heavies are still treated with a certain amount of suspicion. It may not be entirely fair but we have to remember the history of these things and that the game is supposed to be fun to play. Things are a lot better balanced in 8th but we have to remember that for a significant chunk of their history, Knights and FW were NOT fun to play against if you came up against them unexpectedly, especially with certain armies.

 

Prejudices remain, long after original cause has disappeared.

That’s a myth. FW units have always had a stigma because they were uncommon and considered overpowered because they were uncommon. Most FW units are overpriced for what you get, you end up paying through the nose to field something unique that no one wanted to play against.

 

Knight gained the same stigma by being plastic kits of a same type of units FW produces, only they were now a legal unit you couldn’t just say “no FW” to. The irony is that GW Knights were overpriced for their power level, but not by much, which made them balanced, an oddity in 40k. The complaint that armies couldn’t deal with them was BS, because if you couldn’t deal with a Knight, you couldn’t deal with a Leman Rus. The complaint that one Knight was fine but multiple Knights were too difficult to deal with was equally BS as it was same effort needed to deal with multiple vehicles in any other army. It was just the same FW stigma, only this time with no real reason.

 

But GW heard the complaints, and made Knights bad at the start of 8th. Anyone can kill a Knight, even with Lasguns. Yet the stigma still persists. Frankly, the only reason to decline a game with a Knights player is because you lack confidence in your own ability to play. And that’s on you, not the Knights nor the Knight player.

 

Pull up your big boy britches and learn to play like you mean it.

 

SJ

[Frostglaive]

I'll play Devil's Advocate on what jeffersonian000 said (to a degree). People could deal with Leman Russes but not Knights to an extent. Leman Russes during 6th and 7th could degrade depending on how well you rolled with a penetrating hit. Knights did not. They could lose more hull points on a 6, but they still fought at full power. Russes do not have invulnerable saves, while Knights did. Russes couldn't handle close combat, while Knights excelled in it. So on that point, I do disagree with you jeffersonian000.

 

However, like you said, Knights can be killed by lasguns now (probability says not likely. But the possibility still remains). And up until this codex drops, they were over-costed and under-performed. And yet people still fear and hate them.

 

What completely blows my mind though is that in my local meta (to a degree. Not everyone is like this. Saying that in advance), things like Wraithknights, Gorka/Morkanauts, Stormsurges and even BANEBLADES (plus variants) are perfectly fine in people's minds! Baneblades and their counterparts are horrendous with the amount of firepower they put out! And they're cheaper in points! The guys fielding these Lords of War are saying it's perfectly fine to do and have no problem fighting against them. But heaven forbid if someone brings a Knight to the table. It honestly makes no sense to me.

 

I genuinely don't know if it's that deep-rooted stigma from 6th and 7th with them, or if they are just that toxic of a player. Makes no sense to me.

 

I know I said in my original post this wasn't so I could whine and complain about this. This current post is my one exception. I needed to vent for a moment. I apologize. Calm now, back to being rational.

[Stray]

This is an argument I've had many, many times. It's actually quite nice to see it thought through and not degenerating into a horrible pool of toxic goo here :)

 

The thing about prejudices is that they are almost always unfair, they're on the person with the prejudice to fix or change, and unfortunately it's almost always the case that a prejudiced person is blind to the fact they have a prejudice at all :/

 

My advice to all is to remember that in every edition of 40K, there have been units and combos that have been, or seemed to be, significantly more powerful or more problematic than others. That will always be the case really, 40K will never be a perfectly balanced game. If we want that from a wargame, we're probably best sticking to chess :P - it's likely as close as that gets.

 

Problematic units have come from FW in the past, but they're just as likely - if not more likely - to come from the main GW lines. At the end of the day, they're just different departments anyway.

 

The only thing we can reasonably expect to be certain of changing, is our own attitudes. If we can keep our heads up, be constructive and not destructive in our arguments, and our games, be someone in our local metas who has earned the respect of the people around them because of their attitude - I think that's how we best change the attitudes of others.

 

Be a better example than them ;) - make the game a good time for everyone involved no matter what you, or they, bring to the table.

[Lysere]

I'll play Devil's Advocate on what jeffersonian000 said (to a degree). People could deal with Leman Russes but not Knights to an extent. Leman Russes during 6th and 7th could degrade depending on how well you rolled with a penetrating hit. Knights did not. They could lose more hull points on a 6, but they still fought at full power. Russes do not have invulnerable saves, while Knights did. Russes couldn't handle close combat, while Knights excelled in it. So on that point, I do disagree with you jeffersonian000.

 

However, like you said, Knights can be killed by lasguns now (probability says not likely. But the possibility still remains). And up until this codex drops, they were over-costed and under-performed. And yet people still fear and hate them.

 

What completely blows my mind though is that in my local meta (to a degree. Not everyone is like this. Saying that in advance), things like Wraithknights, Gorka/Morkanauts, Stormsurges and even BANEBLADES (plus variants) are perfectly fine in people's minds! Baneblades and their counterparts are horrendous with the amount of firepower they put out! And they're cheaper in points! The guys fielding these Lords of War are saying it's perfectly fine to do and have no problem fighting against them. But heaven forbid if someone brings a Knight to the table. It honestly makes no sense to me.

 

I genuinely don't know if it's that deep-rooted stigma from 6th and 7th with them, or if they are just that toxic of a player. Makes no sense to me.

 

I know I said in my original post this wasn't so I could whine and complain about this. This current post is my one exception. I needed to vent for a moment. I apologize. Calm now, back to being rational.

 

Actually had an eldar player in 7th ed (not a super competitive guy) complain to a buddy of mine after he played against me. I was running Black Templars with an Imperial Knight Crusader and a Culexus Assassin. The eldar player had a wraithknight with Sword and shield.

 

Yes I completely trounced it but it was because I had a good grasp of the game, knew ways to potentially counter it, and got lucky. My friend had to explain to the Eldar player that his list was in fact very competitive and my list was less so. I just played very aggressively and he wasn't expecting it. Yet just because he wasn't as used to the game as I was, and had his own OP super heavy killed fairly quickly due to focused fire and a lucky combat round, he thought my own knight was unfair.

[Marshal Reinhard]

I think a large part of it is the fact that it's an army that's intended to be an army of just super-heavy Lords of War. Back in the ancient days, Lords of War weren't even called that, they were just titanic, super heavy units, and consigned to apocalypse games only. Not 'meant' for regular 40k games. Then we eventually got Escalation i think it was, that added a "Lord of War" slot that let people have just one super heavy something in their armies. More would have been 'imbalanced' I guess. Then along comes knights, in which the only way to make a 'pure' army was to take nothing but Lord of War. 

 

Not the smoothest introduction perhaps. Even so the fear of knights is pretty irrational and unfair, since a bunch of baneblade variants give out a much more larger even stream of firepower. The fact that the knights are designed to play together (and thus are way more balanced for the opponents) should tell be a positive, but people still be like "Ugh, super heavies only army"

[Vel'Cona]

This is an argument I've had many, many times. It's actually quite nice to see it thought through and not degenerating into a horrible pool of toxic goo here

 

By the Omnissiah, that's how it'll stay! :)

 

In either case, I'd agree that the stigma is unfair and frankly ridiculous given "modern" 40k.  Primarchs, super-heavy tanks and all manner of gigantic gribblies abound, and even the Emperor's personal praetorians now grace literally every third table! (at least, that's the local standard)  At this point, IK as a Faction are notable only in that they are made up mostly of Titanic models, and even then the introduction of the Armiger chassis has brought this very standard into question.

 

Perhaps in this light, the "Imperial Soup" concept is actually a means of easing skeptical players into accepting IK?  Since IK benefit from said build anyway (for CP stockpiling) and this introduces a mass of squishier bodies (IG, AdMech, etc.) for the opponent's anti-infantry firepower to chew on, this may be just the ticket to reduce "Knight Terrors" in our opponents.

[Kriegsmacht]

This is a little disheartening to me because Knights are the only reason I keep coming back to this game and setting. I love mechs and so a knights only army appeals to me a lot. I haven't played a 40k game yet and would like to but it sucks that an army I like and the style of play I prefer is already predisposed to be hated and feared.

[jeffersonian000]

From 2e to 6e, we use to House Rule Leman Ruses as Walkers instead of tanks to simulate Knights, or get people to except the old 2e and 3e Knight rules. Imperial Knights appearing in 6e was a 20 year fan dream come true!

 

Now we just need to get them to work.

 

SJ

[bigmic66]

I love all knight armies, they look amazing. I play super heavy guard with twin shadowswords so I love playing against them.

 

IMO, 40k is best played competitively so go for it. Haters gonna hate

New renegade box makes knights more apealling to collect than ever