The Power of Knights in Everyday Play

[Prot]

I'm just curios what other people think of using Knights in everyday play. And I qualify this by excluding Tournament play and gear this more towards gaming that would be among groups of experienced gamers, but an environment that still has an element of 'fun play'. (IE: not every unit is min maxed, and supremely efficient.)

 

Here's my experience and why I'm asking this question:

 

I played AdMech (Mars) pretty heavily to start 8th and was not doing too well, but not bad. Fast forward to the codex, and by and large, it was deemed a bit of a let down -especially- by the competitive community. (Take that for what it's worth but it's something I also participate in).

 

During the release of the codex I found not a lot worked short of running either tons of Mars Kastellans (I like using Cawl and that was his better pairing) and-or tons of Dragoons. 

 

We do play a lot of missions (ITC/Maelstrom) that force you to move, and Gunline is difficult, which seemed to be well owned by Astra anyway.

 

During that entire time (after the new codex release) I found a single Knight was -okay- but certainly nothing that turned AdMech (with a Knight allied in) to be that great. And even on competitive levels this didn't get you anywhere deep into a Sunday playoff.

 

I kept waiting for the Knight Codex, bit into it hard, and waited for them to make Armiger Warglaives better (because Forgebane was frankly a bit of a let down on the table top playing wise, but the models were awesome.)

 

So I am chomping at the bit to play a 'real' Knight Detachment with my Admech as a Batallion that can run around repairing, and throwing bodies at the masses, but that experiment turned out to be too deadly.

 

My AdMech + House Raven (Castellan, Crusader, Errant, Armigers) was way too good. At first I thought like any other new codex my play groups would require time to adjust, and I thought perhaps they played it a little wrong (too much split fire imho).

 

I'm not so sure. Eventually ONE guy gave my Knights trouble and I still won by a nose hair.... Blood Angels! It wasn't a maximized list but I found his smash captain, and VINDICATORS (yes, you read that right) actually gave me big problems. 

 

So after several test games I put them away, but I found they made my AdMech far more enjoyable and although the Admech component is smaller, it allows the player to use less of the 'staple' units and allows for greater flexibility in list building in a way.

 

Is this everyone else's experience? How far is too far? I'm thinking of going with less Knights, far less, but people are gun shy now. The Castellan is an awesome model and I love using it, but I had a few games of using the missile Strat and I won't use it again. Even so the Castellan was too much for most. 

 

I have used just Warglaives.... BUT you don't get any CP's which is tough until you include a Questoris class or better. Is it reasonable in an every day game to put tha tout there?

 

What do you guys think?

 

 

[Redtoof]

I feel like a single Knight with friends is ‘acceptable’ for friendly games - you opponent can choose either to focus it down or ignore it, it can still fill a role that either compliments your army or fills a gap, without being totally overpowering. Consider taking a single knight as a Freeblade for your fun games perhaps?

[librisrouge]

Unless your local meta is fairly competitive, a full knight army will catch too many opponents off guard and you’ll win more from being rock to scissors than through skill. That gets old fast. Mixing it up is good, imo.

[Prot]

Do you guys think the Armiger level knights are okay for every day play?

 

I am thinking of retiring the Castellan and trying 2 Armigers and a paladin, or cc Knight even so I can at least get 3cp.

[Redtoof]

I think the Armiger is ok. It’s basically a big Dreadnought. Lots of bigger, scarier units in other codexes anyway.

[brother_b]

They are seriously powerful. Very powerful. If you can't deal with them then you're not going to have fun. That that extent we are a friendly group and play freindly, competitive games. We make agreements to use knights. Either one of us has a knight equivalent, or we take knight killing units.

[Stray]

I really don't like this discussion much. It crops up in various forms from time to time. Sometimes it's about restricting FW models, sometimes it's LoW in general, currently Knights are popular because of the codex release. It should be remembered they were seen as awful prior to that from a competitive standpoint.

 

At what point is it acceptable to dictate (either passively via local 'opinion'/tradition, or overtly via 'I won't play against 'x'') as to what legal fully supported army or miniature, someone else is allowed to use an enjoy? Because it does  come down to that. You struggle vs Knights? Ok, well Knights struggle against various high mortal wound output armies and hordes. Fact is, everyone struggles against something. The game is fairly 'rock, paper, scissors' in that respect. Certain lists will destroy TAC lists. It's just the reality.

 

I'd be devastated to turn up with my Knights and not be able to get a friendly game somewhere. I rarely get to play, and due to deteriorating mental health issues, getting out  is a rarity. No one should be telling anyone (via any means) what it's ok to field. GW do that via the rules.

 

Yes, some matches will be less fun for you than others depending on who you are playing. But that is the case for every army you could field. 'Fun' shouldn't be about winning. It should be about the co-operative experience between you and your opponent. Surely then, this is about mindset, not lists?

 

For me, it's about the fun of playing the game. I couldn't care less about the result really. My Knights as Renegades are essentially pre-codex anyway as I have no access to anything bar the new units. I know I'm not running a competitive list. But even so, I could never in good faith turn down a game against a list I know I'll struggle against, because that person has a right to run their legal list, and the game will be what I make it.

 

Honestly, I know many will disagree, but I really would (internally, not overtly) think less of anyone who was turning down games consistently against Knights and the like (depending on the reason). :/

 

That said, if you and all your friends agree to 'x' in your games - have at it! I'm really talking more about the public FLGS scene.

[Kilofix]

Single knight is fine.

 

5 Gallants is abit much, unless the opponent is prepped for it.

[brother_b]

Hrmmm I understand your point and would agree. At a pick up game I would play anybody. We're just a close group that tends to discuss what we are going to bring. That works.

 

Also yes if it is a shared experience the game is that much better. I've found if you have that understanding the games are amazing, because the story and experience becomes the focus.

[Subtle Discord]

@Stray (don't want to quote the bock of text)

 

I can understand your sentiment and I agree that the conversation should try to be careful not to shift to singling out what units one might feel unacceptable with the idea of restricting another person's choice. That said, give the original poster some credit, as they're not looking to police what others are bringing to the table but are recognizing that their list is regularly stomping their opponents and they want to police their own list building so they don't become 'that guy' within the group. I think we can agree that when someone recognizes that if they keep doing what they're doing they're choosing to be 'that guy' and we should all strive to not fall into that trap. Outside of hard competitive play, I think it's safe to say it's a general unspoken rule that most people want to have an enjoyable experience, win or lose. I see nothing wrong with enquiring how one might tailor their list to better suit their meta so they can enjoy being both the winner or the loser in a matchup. Personally, I don't mind winning but it's always more satisfying if the opponent had some semblance of a chance to win themselves, and I don't might losing as long as the same holds true for me. Constantly stomping or being stomped gets old really quick.

[Stray]

Yeah, I fully agree. 

 

Apologies to the OP, I certainly wasn't trying to imply that they were implying any form of list control etc, and hope I didn't come off that way. I think actually their attitude is really very admirable, wanting to ensure they are playing what they feel are balanced, close games and ensuring their lists reflect that.

 

My mini-rant was more just a commentary on an extreme aspect of the hobby that tends to crop up in this area of 'is it ok to field 'x'?' There's a lot of negativity that I've encountered online about this subject. I find that somewhat disheartening, you know?

 

If those of us that just love Knights, take a Lance out to a FLGS for a fun game, are we likely to be labeled as 'that guy' by default because we enjoy fielding Knights?

 

I'm certainly not saying anyone here feels that way - most of us are Knight enthusiasts, and a relaxed group of people. But, I dunno, it's a worry to me to an extent that this 'bogeyman' status exists around some units. I'd hate to be thought of as someone that just wants to win by bringing powerful units you know? The reality is I just don't have anything much except Knights to bring to the table, and those I have from love of the fluff and the models.

[Subtle Discord]

As I said, you have a point but the entire post was very one-sided from the get-go and I just wanted to provide some perspective.

 

It's fine to love any list and want to field them, but as you said this is a hobby that requires a partner who has an equal right to the same expectation of consideration. What one side wants doesn't trump the other either way; you should be able to bring what you want without being labeled 'that guy' as a knee-jerk reaction, but that same person should be receptive to the fact that their opponent might sour on a repeated bad tabling and refuse to be a punching bag over-and-over. Not everyone has a large pool of models or the funds to update a collection to change up their list to compensate - and yes I do respect that can cut both ways if you've invested in a Knight list. Either perspective can be taken too far; my liking a particular strong list shouldn't get me labeled 'that guy' who gets turned down for games unreasonably, but I think it's equally bad form to have the attitude that if it's legal they should just deal with it and I'm right because look, the rules say it's ok. We all (should) know Warhammer is anything but perfectly balanced.

 

There's a deeper social contract going on in this hobby and let's all try to remember that when we start to get too defensive in our point-of-view; at least try to consider why someone is being the way they are, in either direction. Is someone refusing to play 'X' because they've been repeatedly smeared by it and they are tired of that (reasonable), or are they really jumping on the bandwagon of simply refusing because of one bad game and/or an unfounded general consensus of the group (unreasonable)? Is someone bringing a beloved list they know is strong but is willing to change it up, at least sometimes, when they see that the local meta simply can't cope (reasonable), or do they always show up with the same curb stomping list while being tone-deaf to the community they're involved in (unreasonable)?

 

I also get that the group at the LFGS might not be all that rational at times, but that's actually sorta' what I'm saying. You're not wrong, but it's not always cut-and-dry and I just wanted to add some perspective. And, if someone is dealing with such an attitude in a group and they try to counter it by getting everyone remembering that each person at the table has a perspective that deserves consideration, maybe some groups could flush out some of those toxic attitudes.

 

Ok, sorry about taking the conversation off into the weeds but I think it does fit in well with the overall narrative of the discussion.

[gilt_imp]

I would imagine 2 Armigers and 1 Questoris knight would be (should be) an acceptable detachment for a casual game.

 

In my own personal experience, I have never got to use Imperial Knights as a faction in my local GW store.

Early last year (before 8^th edition) my GW store ran a small tournament just for beginners, the aim was to learn the game. The rules were 750 Points total, at least 1 HQ and 1 Troops, the rest of the army selection was up to the player. I realised that 2 Imperial knights (Errant & Paladin) met that requirement with one a character (remember this was before 8^th ed). The GW manager told me personally face to face he would not allow me to use my knights, they were ‘unfair’. Even though I had finished painting my 2 knights from the then original ‘Renegade’ box. I stated but these are my army I want to learn. He wouldn’t budge on this matter. I said ok, no problem, I understand, but I had no other figures so that was that.

 

Few months later I had completed painting a 5 knight detachment, still was just before 8^th edition hit. I organised with another player (Astra Militarum with Baneblade & Shadowsword) to play in the local GW on their city ruin terrain board. This was just a single one off game as a friendly, as I still didn’t know the rules properly, never having used my army before. While we were setting up to play, the GW manager (same guy as before) came over and asked What’s this? We explained today was Guard vs Knights. The manager got upset, and told me no, I was not allowed to play the knight faction as a whole army. I couldn’t believe my ears. He stated quite clearly that the Imperial Knight faction was unfair to my opponent and he would never let me use them. He even said if he knew I was bringing 5 knights to a game he would have told me to not bother as he would never approve of this. So, he made us pack up before we even got to roll off for first turn. I felt bad and confused. Felt bad for my opponent too as he was nice guy.

 

Anyway, I can look back now and laugh, realising the manager must have had his reasons, maybe he believed knights were too powerful. I also see that as Knights were ‘my army’ I just really wanted to play them and learn them. Strange now that some players complain knights are too powerful when back then other players/managers even thought the same thing. Thing is there are always people complaining about some units being too strong, too good, too cheap etc etc.

As for me I did get to use my knights, just not in the GW store. I have since moved but keep in touch with some people and we play in a house or a gaming club on their tables. It’s a relaxed casual feeling.

 

 

If we can’t change people’s opinions about certain units, if we can’t change their perceptions, then all we can do is change our own. Change who you play with or where you play. Might make a real difference.

[Stray]

I just want to reiterate that my intention would never be to offend anyone here - I love the interactions I have with our little community in this forum and respect each and everyone of you. Beyond that, several of you I view as real friends. So, please, keep that in mind if I get at all impassioned below :)

 

I'm all for a fair game. I think sportsmanship and positive experience for everyone is really important.

 

But as has been said, 40K is not a balanced game. Right now, Knights are pretty good - actually not so much as a whole army, more as a support unit in soup lists - but just as (probably more, depending on the lists involved) powerful is Captain Slamguinius, Bike Custodes, various flavours of Drukhari, etc etc.

 

Does that mean that these units should also not be fielded? Should we all be running basic infantry at all times for fear of using a unit that might cause us to be too competitive? Where does it stop?

 

I don't see where it is unfair to field units as per the rules really. Honestly, I think if there is any kind of pressure or expectation for you to field different units because someone is 'concerned' about them, then I think that individual is asking for special consideration which is outside of the game. Now, there isn't anything wrong in asking for that special consideration, but it shouldn't be expected - I feel you are doing them a service if you acquiesce. Your units are legal, and part of the game you have both chosen to make your hobby. If they are being removed by agreement (and that's fine), you're now playing a home brew tabletop game based on 40K. 

 

I used to fence quite a bit. The bouts I enjoyed the most where always the ones I lost. Why? Because they were the ones i was able to learn from and grow because of. I could have played solely against the most junior club members and won a lot, but why? Playing against someone better, or with technique I struggle against challenges and teaches. Next time I'll do a little better because of that loss - if I'm open minded enough to let it teach me.

 

I figure we can play 40K in a similar way. If I bring a Knight list and can see that your list will find that difficult, do I have to play as though I'm going for the throat? No. We can have a good time, some laughs, play a less adversarial game and help each other to cope with the lists we struggle against in the tougher matchups. To me, THAT is what the social contract should be about. Not an excuse for list or unit ostracising (which sadly has been the case at times), but an agreement to be a decent human being at the table who will make a tough match a positive experience.

 

Gilt, thank you for sharing your experience. I'm very sorry to hear about your experience with that manager by the way, and pretty shocked that that happened in a GW store! Frankly I think he was way out of line.

[gilt_imp]

Thank you Stray!

It’s ok, there are other more worse things that happened in that store the manager was involved in, but that’s not related to knights

 

Good luck playing or even just having fun with the knights. They really do look an awesome force on the table.

 

I’m sure the way the 8^th edition codex have come so quickly, people will focus on another meta changing force soon!

[Subtle Discord]

Don't worry, I personally am anything but offended. Life's too short to get worked up over an online conversation. And that's what this is, a conversation.

 

All I'm saying is context and nuance matters, and I feel that the way you're presenting your opinion is stripping a lot of it away and making it too cut-and-dry. I think you're bringing a little too much of your personal experience of your local meta into the talk while I'm trying to speak in broader terms and remind people that 'fairness' is a very subjective term, even when it comes to something like a black-and-white rulebook. Especially if you can agree that 40k comes with several situations where balance is lacking, unfortunately. Notice, not once am I saying you're wrong but you seem to be defending your position as if I am in some way. I'm intentionally presenting my perspective in a way to show that I get what you're saying, but also to show that it's not so simple, context matters, and yes, sometimes someones 'concern' that they keep getting stomped has every right to be taken into account. Yes, ideally a good losing experience will still be fun and leave you learning how you might do better in later matches. But what happens when you've played four or five games and no matter what you try your opponent simply has a 'rock' to your 'scissors' and by turn 3-4 it's just over. Neither side is 'wrong', but it's within the loser's right to reasonably (key word) decline that experience in future and focuses on trying to find a more appropriate match. Now, if the entire group goes out of their way to ostracize a player because of unfounded fear of a given unit or list, yup, that's unreasonable. But if someone keeps showing up with a 'creative' list that makes it an uphill slog for practically anyone who faces them, and isn't even responsive to the idea that this a communal social hobby that includes everyone and sometime that require a bit of compromise, well they're just being obtuse. I'm not saying you're being that way at your FLGS but I'm trying to provide some distinction and show that unreasonable expectations from either side of the fence can be a problem.

 

The above example of the GW manager stepping in, telling two people who had independently agreed to a match, that it wasn't going to happen is an example of someone being absolutely absurd and stepping waaay over the line, even if it was 'their store'. If they want to put limitations on an event they're running (even if the logic is flawed) that's reasonable, but keep your nose out of a game that both players are completely fine with playing. I would have tried to rationally explain this to anyone who felt they had some right to do that and if they were unwilling to see how absurd they were being I'd be happy to inform them that they just lost a customer.

 

*Subtle turns off the equine blunt force application machine*

[Stray]

Thanks Subtle. Honestly I find your reasoning hard to argue against and agree broadly with you on most points. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong at all buddy. We're very much on the same page in terms of 'win at all costs' attitudes and lists. I also agree that it's likely to cease being fun to be curbstomped by the same list multiple times. I'm not really thinking of those occasions in truth, more the one off encounters with a player you've just met?

 

For context, I don't really have a local meta or FLGS. In fact, terrible as it sounds I've even yet to play a game of 8th edition - it's difficult to get out to do so.

My argument is really therefore quite secondhand, and just based on what I've been hearing and observing from others. (That may make it less valid quite honestly).

 

I'm fairly worried about being met by the school of thought I've outlined though if I am able to 'get out there'.

 

I'd have been on the phone to Nottingham over that manager in truth I think :/

[Prot]

I’m glad that with differing opinions the conycan still stay civil. Thanks for that.

 

Back to the point this isn’t so much about people accepting my Knights. I play in a few groups and some of those people would have no trouble playing my Knights. And they would make short work of them.

 

But I’m doing a bit of a reality check on what’s reasonable for every day games that you’re probably not going to find in something hardcore.

 

I’m thinking the Dominus class is possibly beyond the scope of that player. I could be wrong.

[DuskRaider]

I spent my hard earned money on my Knights, I'll play whatever the hell I want. That being said, I generally only use them against my son's or friends' Knight armies as well. Nothing more fun than giant robots beating the crap out of each other. But generally if I feel like playing my Knights and I have the points (it's not like I play uber competitive anyhow) either set up across from me on the board or play someone else. 

[Lord_Caerolion]

If anything, I guess the impossibility of fighting Knights is lessened in 8th, what with being able to hurt anything with any guns, and the availability of mortal wounds. Personally I have no issue with people who'd want to use a full Knight army against me, even though that'll probably go quite badly for me (my armies are not exactly designed with competitiveness in mind). 

 

Basically, I guess so long as you're not suddenly springing them on anyone, it should all be ok. It's a legal army, after all.

[Magos Takatus]

Thanks Subtle. Honestly I find your reasoning hard to argue against and agree broadly with you on most points. I'm certainly not saying you're wrong at all buddy. We're very much on the same page in terms of 'win at all costs' attitudes and lists. I also agree that it's likely to cease being fun to be curbstomped by the same list multiple times. I'm not really thinking of those occasions in truth, more the one off encounters with a player you've just met?

 

For context, I don't really have a local meta or FLGS. In fact, terrible as it sounds I've even yet to play a game of 8th edition - it's difficult to get out to do so.

My argument is really therefore quite secondhand, and just based on what I've been hearing and observing from others. (That may make it less valid quite honestly).

 

I'm fairly worried about being met by the school of thought I've outlined though if I am able to 'get out there'.

 

I'd have been on the phone to Nottingham over that manager in truth I think :/

I can get behind not having played a game of 8th edition yet, My Admech are on standby but I find it difficult to actually go out and meet people. I would hope when I get there I wouldn't have my army banned before I even put a model on the table. I will be slowly working on my Mechanicus Knights over time and I would hope people would enjoy the spectacle of playing against them rather than have them assume I am playing them for all the wrong reasons. The prospect of developing the lore and the custom heraldry is exciting to me and I would like to share that sometime rather than have them sit on a shelf forever.

[Tokugawa]

Armigers are just some better dreads variants.

 

Dreadnoughts have access to good chasis, but the GW codices deprived their options of weapons ruthlessly, so...

[synthaside]

I actually think dreadnaughts are going to come back on a big way with space wolves and in ITC missions that 8 wound mark is a big benefit ..

but that's by the by ... Don't get me started on that butcher cannon though ;-)

 

On topic , The problem with casual / friendly pickup play is that it's really hard to exactly define ... the boundaries, I've turned up with kataphrons to face a triple pred , slam captain blood angels with gaurd cp list , but I've turned the tables later on by taking 3 Icarus against eldar fliers ... Mwhahah . both were supposedly casual games but the difference was talking to my opponent before hand to agree a scale and talk armies ...

 

At both my club and at our local GW there are groubd rules to prevent / curtale this sort of thing announce what factions and judge your list out of 10 , 10 being I'd feel ok taking it to a small tourney balanced games. That way when you sit down with your opponent and they said 5 /10 an bring the latest netlist bollocks you have every right to tell them to tone it down ...

[Prot]

Is there a way to steer this from "I have a right to play my models" towards "Is my army going to frustrate a lot of people"?

 

When I played my Knights with Admech PRE-Codex it didn't change much for me. They Knights were too expensive, and Astra still had the gunline award hands down. In fact I often did not think the Knight actually made a big enough difference to be considered an auto include.

 

One of my first games when the codex came out... I play against a friend's fairly strong Renegade Legion Trait Chaos Marines. Preds, a traitor Questoris Crusader type, Oblits, Sorc on Bike, a squad of Berzerkers.... good, solid stuff. I honestly thought if he plays this well, this is going to be a good, close game.

 

By the end of it he thought the Knights were so overpowering that there was no way he could compete with this with anything less than Guard. I felt bad. It was the first (only) time I used the Guidance Missile Strat and blew up his warlord in one shot. The Volcano Cannon ripped into this Forgeworld laser Vindicator, and my Crusader tore his Berzerkers apart... turn 1 he was pretty much in a massive defecit. His Oblits came in and he tried Cacophany which is very strong, but he couldn't take a Knight down.

 

Did he make mistakes? I think quite a bit. But this is a list that is considered fairly competent (perhaps not top tier but very potent). All I know is when my opponent has that much frustration, I am not so concerned about my right to play a model I bought, and more so my opponent's desire to have a good, fun game of 40K.

 

I just wanted to say the goal here was to see if you guys are basically plopping down a Knight list, or Knight allied list and 1) finding it wasn't too extreme and a lot of opponents seemed to enjoy it, and found it something they could beat, and 2) if you are playing that sort of Knight list, what is it basically comprised of? Mostly Armigers? Dominus class? A full Knight list, or are you complimenting your Mechanicus?

 

@Synthaside: I agree. As more extreme swings in the meta start to show, it's really hard to define what is too strong. In part that's why I'm doing this reality check. People can get stuck in a rut. I want to see if my Meta just needs to adjust. But I'm thinking I will keep the Castellan off the table for now!

[jeffersonian000]

From my personal experience over the past 3 editions of the game, people play with too little terrain and next to no line of sight blocking terrain. This makes gun-line and fast armies over powered compared to slower and/or more melee focused armies. Knights on an open table either die turn 1 or slaughter their opponent turn 1 depending on who goes first. With proper terrain, big units can be focused without letting them run amuck, gun-lines have to move, and melee can approach in cover. The meta skews away from the current power lists and tends towards more movement focused armies. Facing Knights means less, because your army isn’t hanging in the open waiting to be shot off the board, while Knight armies have to maneuver to get shots or to get around terrain for a charge. You will experience a completely different game once you start using correct terrain.

 

SJ