Discussing the 'fear of Knights'

[Aothaine]

I think the knights bring a very important counter role to the meta for both competitive and casual play. People want to win. Some people plan for it. The Knights have significant weaknesses and they have been pointed out here. But Just a quick summary:

 

1. Objective Control is difficult

2. Low Model Count

3. Degradation

4. Cannot hide Warlord as easily as most armies can

 

Just with those alone you can build multiple lists that completely counter knights or build lists that can do well enough to possibly win and still have chances to win against other lists. I think the main issue is that people are still feeling the effects of 6th and 7th ed in regards to giant walkers of any faction. You're going to experience the same thing if you bring a Monster Mash Tyranid list, or a Imperial Guard Tank Company, or even Chaos Primarch lists using both primarchs and cultists with Iron Warriors and Daemon Princes. There are always going to be scary godzilla lists out there that you need to prepare for and I feel that people need to understand that they need to prepare for lists like these. But these lists rarely win tournaments. They are gatekeeper lists. Easy to use. Allows you to beat people that bring fluffy fun lists and that are not focusing on the more competitive side of the game. But these lists have historically not won big tournaments. I think there was one recent tournament where a knight soup list won. But I don't think it was pure knights. I could be wrong here though.

 

Regardless, when playing games just check with your opponent and find out what type of game they want to play. Someone might be in the mood for all infantry or a mix of smaller vehicles and infantry. Others might not care at all. Remember this is a game with a lot of flexibility and rules but the most important rule it to make sure you and your opponent are enjoying the game.

[Heliomanes]

I enjoy and applaud the relaxed and considerate tone in this thread. Just discussing this calmly, kindly, and reasonably from multiple angles does a world of good. It serves to remind us that "the opposing team" (whatever that may be) in discussions like these aren't just internet trolls or people who play for the wrong reasons. :)

[Aothaine]

I enjoy and applaud the relaxed and considerate tone in this thread. Just discussing this calmly, kindly, and reasonably from multiple angles does a world of good. It serves to remind us that "the opposing team" (whatever that may be) in discussions like these aren't just internet trolls or people who play for the wrong reasons.

 

Careful. Speaking about them does tend to bring them out of the woods. Though I have found this forum relatively troll-free.

[Stray]

We do have an amazing community here on the board that way. I think we often disagree in reality, but we all get on, like, and respect each other enough, that there's the immediate dismissal of a different opinion being some kind of 'challenge' to compete against.

 

There's wisdom in listening to other opinions. Opinions are not facts, and while we often hold ours to be correct, it often isn't the case. At the very least, you open yourself up to the opportunity of refining yours further.

 

It means fighting our egos a bit, but there's something to be said for being wrong. When we can realise we're wrong, we're also afforded the opportunity to learn something new - we grow that way!

 

It might feel nice being right all the time, but it does very little for us in reality - apart from swelling our heads ;P

[jeffersonian000]

I see things a bit differently that most, it seems. For me, a game is a mental boxing match between me and my opponent, the armies themselves don’t really matter. The “match” starts with army selection, goes to army building, then table set up, mission, deployment, etc. I play Grey Knights, so I’ve already chosen to play at a handicap. Should I complain when my opponent fields Imperial Knights? Is my opponent using weighted gloves?

 

The reality is, I chose my army as part of my strategy, with the outcome resting on my ability to win based on my decisions, and the execution resting on my making less mistakes than my opponent.

 

So when it comes to people complaining about another person’s army, all I see is someone that already made decisions they regret but are unwilling to except the challenge of making those decisions work. And I’m sure the “L2P”, “GitGud”, and “Play better” crowd see things closer to how I do than to how the complainers do.

 

In the end, it’s just a hobby. You might see it as Checkers, I see it as Chess.

 

SJ

[Karhedron]

The problem I see often comes when two players with different approaches to an army clash. There is nothing wrong with bringing a WAAC list to a casual game as long as your opponent knows that. In my local club, people will often announce that they are practicing for a tourny. This basically means they will be bringing a competitive list and they are looking for people to do the same.

 

Fluffy vs WAAC or balanced vs eggs-in-one-basket doesn't matter as much as informed consent. A lot of people like bringing secret lists but outside of tournement play, I rarely do this. I will normally tell my opponent at least what faction I am bringing. If I plan to bring any super-heavies, I will normally announce that too. Yes I may be giving up a competitive edge by doing so but in a friendly game, what does that matter? If I give my opponent a rough idea of the sort of army I am bringing, I may slightly decrease my chances of winning but I greatly increase my chances of having a close (and more enjoyable) game.

[9x19 Parabellum]

I see things a bit differently that most, it seems. For me, a game is a mental boxing match between me and my opponent, the armies themselves don’t really matter. The “match” starts with army selection, goes to army building, then table set up, mission, deployment, etc. I play Grey Knights, so I’ve already chosen to play at a handicap. Should I complain when my opponent fields Imperial Knights? Is my opponent using weighted gloves?

 

The reality is, I chose my army as part of my strategy, with the outcome resting on my ability to win based on my decisions, and the execution resting on my making less mistakes than my opponent.

 

So when it comes to people complaining about another person’s army, all I see is someone that already made decisions they regret but are unwilling to except the challenge of making those decisions work. And I’m sure the “L2P”, “GitGud”, and “Play better” crowd see things closer to how I do than to how the complainers do.

 

In the end, it’s just a hobby. You might see it as Checkers, I see it as Chess.

 

SJ

 

It is an interpretation on your part that anyone is complaining; it might be a justifiable interpretation (I might even agree with you), but you should really be careful about that.  It's equally likely that in that person's mind (the person you think is complaining), that what they are trying to do is communicate with you specifically or the broader community about what they want and hope for out of the game. 

 

I'll give an out-of-40k example where this precise dynamic played out.  My wife LOVES Scrabble, and when we first got married, I used to play with her.  She's as much of a Scrabble power-gamer as we are all likely 40k power-gamers.  Now, my primary interest in playing Scrabble is to see what kind of big word combinations I can make.  I want to win, sure, but playing a big 5, 6 or 7 letter word is just more gratifying to me than scoring big points. If I can do both, great.  My wife, on the other hand, plays solely to win, and has no compunctions about optimizing two-letter words, using double/triple letter/word locations to really amp up her score.  I find that a boring way to play. 

 

One day, after playing a game and she beat me, I was remarking upon why I didn't really care for Scrabble, and realized that the game actually kind of punishes you for making big words, as it gives the next player a nice framework & options from which to leverage their words, and it doesn't necessarily score you any extra points.  In my mind I was not complaining, I was just talking about the game of Scrabble and what I liked and disliked about the game. I didn't expect her to actually change the way she approached the game, though it would be cool if she did. After a few back-and-forths, she got frustrated with me and said something like "It <small word scoring/optimization> is part of the strategy. Maybe you should stop complaining about it and play strategically?".

 

Guess who has never gotten a game of Scrabble at home since then?

 

If she loves the game of Scrabble, did her attitude toward me pay off in the long run? Only she can answer that.

 

At the end of the day, always remember, no one HAS TO PLAY YOU.

[Heliomanes]

That goes both ways though. I find it troubling that the question is often framed as competitive gamers spoiling the fun for the others, when it really is two or more equally valid ways of getting enjoyment from a game that clash due to miscommunication.

[9x19 Parabellum]

That goes both ways though. I find it troubling that the question is often framed as competitive gamers spoiling the fun for the others, when it really is two or more equally valid ways of getting enjoyment from a game that clash due to miscommunication.

 

Absolutely. There should be understanding/communication/compromise on both sides.  I'm only taking this position here because of how the OP (Stray) framed the question/discussion and it seemed there was already a good deal of support for that side of the equation.

[jeffersonian000]

Scrabble gets super easy once you memorize all the 2 letter words. That’s a Pro Scrabble player tip, btw.

 

SJ

[Stray]

 

That goes both ways though. I find it troubling that the question is often framed as competitive gamers spoiling the fun for the others, when it really is two or more equally valid ways of getting enjoyment from a game that clash due to miscommunication.

 

Absolutely. There should be understanding/communication/compromise on both sides.  I'm only taking this position here because of how the OP (Stray) framed the question/discussion and it seemed there was already a good deal of support for that side of the equation.

 

 

I appreciate the role of the devils advocate played well - it adds much to a discussion. Thanks Para.

 

I think Frostglaive was the literal OP though in this case, but I understand where you're coming from - your initial post was in response to one of mine I believe.

[Vel'Cona]

 

Careful. Speaking about them does tend to bring them out of the woods. Though I have found this forum relatively troll-free.

 

That's what the "Report" button is for :)  Rest assured every report is considered in detail.

 

Just to try and keep us on topic, I feel that Para is stating a concept very near and dear to my heart: social contract.  I have no problem at all with extremely competitive, composition-ignoring lists as long as they are utilized in the appropriate context.  At the same time, it behooves both players in a "friendly" setting to make it clear what they want from the game.  A clear example for me is if someone sits down opposite with a large proportion of FW kits in a friendly game.  Now, nothing is inherently wrong with this and GW has backed up FW since 6th edition, but I still have a gut reaction of "pay to win" when I see this.  Typically, I will turn down said opponents outside of a tournament environment, which I rarely partake in these days for this precise reason.

 

Am I being unreasonable by doing so?  I feel that I am not, because I have made it clear to my opponent what I want from the game and it doesn't mesh with their goals, and rather than put either of us in a situation that we probably won't enjoy, I simply extricate myself from the equation.  Whether I am right or wrong about my feelings on FW models is irrelevant, because we're not in a compelled play environment (organized tournaments/events/etc.) and therefore I haven't "signed up" to participate in such games.  The same is true for opponents who regard IK poorly; if I sit down with 4-5 Knights and they decide that this is not what they want from their game, then it's totally their right to turn me down.

 

This social contract is one of the reasons wargaming is in my honest and extremely personal opinion the superior gaming experience, because it's also a matter of creating positive interaction and enjoying the opposing player's company as much as we enjoy the game and the thrill of victory.  With this in mind, I would actually prefer (in a friendly environment, at least) for my opponent to decline a game with my Knights rather than force themselves to play me and get frustrated that they're not getting the kind of game they wanted/expected.

[Dracos]

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.

This is NOT a myth. This is TRUTH.

 

There were good reasons FW was banned from most tournament pre 5th (6th?) ed. Same reason Knights are feared today. They are meta-changers. You can rationalize your love of robots all you want but you’re only fooling yourself in thinking Knights are going to ever be widely accepted on the friendly playing table. If your opponent isn’t expecting a Knight, if it’s a standard friendly all comers list then they’re screwed. Same as if you brought a Shadowsword or Baneblade. Expect to be rejected at friendly games unless your opponent had a warning of what they face. In which case the blade switches hands and the game becomes competitively unfair for the Knight player. It’s sad really. I love Knight models but Lords of War should have no place in a standard 40k game. They have too heavy an effect on the game.

 

I say all this as an old man from the days of 2nd edition’s birth ... and plan on making my second 2k army Imperial Knights. I expect to face everything I’ve mentioned and knowing what I will face will plan for. Mainly by using Knight Detachments in Tournament where my opponent has stepped into the competive arena and know walking in the kid gloves were coming off. Or set up games with friends (most of which are Uber competition so aren’t fazed). What I won’t do is be surprised or have hurt feelings if the noob Custodes player balks at playing against a Knight heavy army. I expect and accept it.

 

Don’t say such things are Myth. I’ve lived those dark days when Apocalypse was birthed. It ran many away from the game and divided the community. I applaud GW attempt to make them mainstream but they really ought to take a second look at Guard (not calling it anything else) because that Shadowsword is going to start showing up everywhere now that Knights are changing the Meta ... again.

[Mushkilla]

That was true in those editions. I was there too. But things are different now, anything can hurt a knight, and man do they still suck at playing the mission (in fact they are worse they used to have objective secure), progressive scoring games like (chapter approved eternal war just shut them down hard).

 

However, the only reason knight are having an effect on the meta right now is that hordes of infantry have the same skewing effect. They have forced most armies to drop any reasonable amount of anti tank weaponry. So there a are a lot of lists that have over specialised on dealing with hordes and cant deal with knights in terms of destroying them. Also I'd like to point out that none of those meta changing knight lists are pure knights either.

 

But there is always the mission, and pure knights don't have the numbers, objective secure, speed or the firepower to reliably take on any form of mobile MSU or horde list on a board with a reasonable amount of terrain. Things like Tau/Harlequins/Eldar/dark eldar can just run rings around you racking up VP. Orks and Guard can just spread out and prevent you moving out of your deployment zone until it's too late for you to catch up on VP.

 

I have yet to win a game with my pure knights since the codex dropped. Maybe it's my gaming group? It is quite competitive. But I normally win most of my games and I run pure tzeentch daemons, which is not considered competitive, so I doubt it's that. Maybe they just know that they can stall my force and play the mission get a big enough lead and then switch to survival mode?

 

I'll say it again, if your plan to beat knights is to destroy them. You are doing it wrong. People seem to forget that the objective of the mission isn't kill the enemy army. It's to score more victory points than your opponent. Play the mission.

 

All knights do is force armies that are used to tabling their opponents to win into playing the mission. That's their meta shifting effect. Is that a bad thing?

 

Personally, I find getting tabled to be a pretty bad gameplay experience. So any armies that encourage people to build lists that can play the mission rather than building lists that can table their opponent is a good thing.

[CaptainMarsh]

Never understood the fear of Knights myself. They're not a particularly difficult army to beat as long as you're playing the actual game and not trying to out-murder them. Never understood the mentality that Knights or FW were black marks but broken, awful formations for certain armies in 7th just needed to be accepted. I had far more issue with someone bringing that Tau formation with the suits at 750 points than I ever had with Knights or FW. And before that, GW released units and synergies shattered the game more often than what FW brought to the table. 

This isn't true of everyone who feels this way, and not even most, and I admit I am likely being unfair, but a certain percentage of it always came across to me as more in-line with envy or jealousy. Certainly likely untrue...but that is always how it sounded to me.

In 8th Edition, fear of Knights is unfounded, distrust of FW seems silly IMHO. 

[chapter master 454]

Seems there are some polarising variance here however I haven't played enough yet to gain any sort of proper knowledge of the match-ups yet.

 

Personally, I find knights still have an able enough body to get and hold objectives. My current list however is a Castellan, 2 crusaders (one thermal and one RFBC) and 2 armiger warglaives and it seems to be able to take on a lot of targets fairly well. However I will concede my opinion is serious screwed however for now as my three opponents have been space marines, space wolves and Tau.

The Space Marine player brought a Typhon siege tank as his army along with 3 predators, intending to try and out-firebase me and got tabled by turn 3 (he just had the requirements for a battalion so min scouts with snipers and a tact squad with heavy bolter).

The space wolf player imo threw the game away as his normal list is two stormfangs and a bunch of things with 3++ (wulfen with storm shield, dreadnought with storm shield...his gran with storm shield...his dog with storm shield...what can't space wolves put a storm shield on?) and that list scared me as melee was going to HURT but instead he brought a spartan assault tank, a double grav-flux bombard levaithan dreadnought and 3 stormfangs, only one with double double melta. However this game can be thrown out a window as his spartan failed to do anything against my dominus (bad rolls + hot saves with ion bulwark) and the return crack-back from the volcano lance alone took out the spartan in one go. Rest of the game was clean up really.

The Tau was my friend however and his list was one I was quite involved with. 3 riptides all equipped the same, Heavy Burst Cannon and 2 fusion blasters with a target lock and Advanced Targetting system. This means all 3 of those riptides have their own Avenger Gatling Cannon with the fusions meant to help crack harder targets. The main issue I have been seeing with his list is a lack of mid line due to us (we try to actively improve his list by going through his units and trying to find where things go wrong) find crisis suits not fitting the bill. Effectively he lacks a second threat group. So...I deleted two riptides turn 1 and that was effectively game. Only reprieve is that he did want to see knights and why I managed to pack up several hours before he finished his game 2 week prior!

 

Some notes I think are key with knights: Don't try to "out big stuff" us. It isn't going to work. Knights are meant to take out tanks and big monsters with ease and their weapons show it, a vast majority of our gear is multi-damage (in fact, isn't the heavy stubber and multi-laser our only weapons that do 1 damage?) so I believe there is a need to develop a stronger infantry core along with bringing lighter, more efficient anti-tank. Lists that can actually cover their weaknesses rather well instead of losing one unit loses that ability.

I do believe objectives is something knights can actually handle well. The range of their guns can help them cover multiple objectives easily meaning while you may only need to get rid of one knight on that site, multiple knights can return fire. However, it is certainly a thing that since we are low objective count, it can be a struggle...however Ascension for knights is dear god in our advantage (remember, the relic stratagem also makes another knight a character).

 

Again however, my list is guns guns guns and not a prison managment list (Warden Warden Warden!) so to be fair I don't use the melee knights, preferring to use Crusaders feeling that they are the strongest Questor knight available. However time will tell, will be interesting to see the next following tournaments for 40k to see how well knights perform.

To be honest I think they are a healthy addition to the game as they are the other extreme now present. We were getting so much infantry dominance that no-one cared about armour but now knights are quite a real threat. Might see it shake the meta a little (since knights are fairly decent at clearing hordes due to the AGC and putting on their dancing shoes!).