Chaos players and Knights!

[LCS]

If you've converted you Knight to Chaos, then I don't mind you using them in friendly games. However, I hope you don't mind me using Storm Ravens with my Dark Angels as part of my army so I can put my Deathwing in them. Or Centurions, I would love to use all my SM models with the army I've been playing for 16 years. Something about calling my DA successor chapter generic iron and green Space Marines rubs me the wrong way. Also I hope you don't mind me taking Wraithknighs in my Dark Eldar army without using allies to take the Eldar HQ and troop options.

And I know that it's not the same (or what you Chaos players want), but Chaos already has a super heavy Knight-like unit. They got it before anyone else did, other than Orks. I do hope that in the future they put out rules and a FW conversion kit for Chaos Knights. They are in the fluff and would probably look really cool. Honestly do you really need Knights? I for one would hate to fight 3 or 4 Heldrakes backed up by a Knight surrounded by cultists. That doesn't sound like a of fun to me, especially not in a casual game.

[BrianDavion]

I just hope that GW realizes from the excitement surrounding IKs, that there is a clear and obvious intrest in what they represent.

which are "reasonable small scale super heavies suitable for use in a standard game"

I mean any super heavy beyond 500 points or so is getting a bit much for a conventional game

[Eberk]

I for one would hate to fight 3 or 4 Heldrakes backed up by a Knight surrounded by cultists. That doesn't sound like a of fun to me, especially not in a casual game.

The problem in that battle isn't the converted Chaos Knight. It is the WAAC, rules-exploiting player who takes 3-4 Helldrakes with Cultists for troops. With our without the Knight that army won't be fun to play against.

[Anakzar]

I played against two knights in a 2k friendly game with blood angels backing them up. I had the new tyranids Flying hive tyrant, crone, harpy, some zonanthropes a mawlok(who died in hand to hand but took some hull points off of one knight). Game ended with Mesphestain(talk about an OP model) in CC with a ton of termagants surrounded by most of my army. Zoanthropes and Venomthropes absorbed most of his large blast attacks while he tried to shoot down my flying stuff with his heavy stubbers. He did stomp on a group of termagants but took that knight two rounds to kill a group of 15.

The knights have to be shot to death they don't really have much defense against air attacks. Just heavy stubbers(I made all but one grounding test). The knights only have one big gun each, granted its nasty but their real threat is the Big D sword. So just stay out of CC or toss expendable models at them to slow them down... they do move at 12" so that can be a challenge. And shoot them to death.

Going to play him again this Sunday but this time with just 2 Knights VS 750 points of tyranids... bringing 3 FMC: Tyrant, Crone and Harpy... termagants and zonanthropes to round out the army. I fully expect the ground troops to die early... then we will see how well my grounding tests go this time

Anyhow my point is they are not as powerful as the hype and have some serious vulnerabilities so should be played with other models, they need some anti-air support badly.

[Charon]

How do you hold objectives when he removes your ground troops?
Getting 15 Termagaunts in 2 rounds (4 combat subphases) must be a case of extremely bad luck. Thats 12 templates which will hit 2 or 3 gaunts on average (per template!) as you are forced to clump up with your pile in move.
Or do you mean 2 subphases? That would be reasonable but its hardly a "weakness" as even a Daemon prince wit a daemonic weapon rolling max attacks will need AT LEAST 2 subphases (while 3 is more realistic, even with max attacks from the weapon)

[DarkLink]

As you have already requested I try to steer away from off topic matter I will ask that if you want to discuss that matter further perhaps a separate topic or even messaging should be arranged.

There's not much to discuss, but it is on topic. The topic is whether or not there should be Traitor Knight rules. The proposal that you should just play with them even though there aren't rules to support this is a direct logical extension, and discussion of the reasons why people might not accept house rules on the issue is similarly on topic. Grilling Charon for his personal philosophy is probably getting a little off topic, but I'm merely rebuking a judgmental statement about anyone who isn't willing to play by your arbitrarily defined house rules.

The point is, not everyone is going to accept arbitrarily allowing CSM to take Knights, even if there's fluff to support it. That does not make them bad people. Hopefully, GW releases actual Traitor Knight rules, but GW's not exactly known for putting out much support for what the community wants.

[George Labour]

Should there be traitor knights rules? Yes and the codex itself makes mention of them but emphasises their rarity. So here's hoping they're just splitting them up the way they do loyalist and chaos space marines.

However if I'm reading the knightly allies rules correctly then you can take imperial guard as your primary, use your ally detachment for chaos astartes. Then you can attach a knight force to the imperial guard as well.

page 61 third paragraph if anyone else wishes to reference the exact text.

[Gleipnir]

I think most players absent any rules descriptions for how it is handled otherwise take Come the Apocalypse to mean the two codex armies may not both be in the same army.

Personally though Id suggest if someone wants a Daemon Knight detachment, they should just model one and ask their opponent to allow for it as at least an ally of convenience. Its hardly game breaking.

[Jin'thal]

Should there be traitor knights rules? Yes and the codex itself makes mention of them but emphasises their rarity. So here's hoping they're just splitting them up the way they do loyalist and chaos space marines.

However if I'm reading the knightly allies rules correctly then you can take imperial guard as your primary, use your ally detachment for chaos astartes. Then you can attach a knight force to the imperial guard as well.

page 61 third paragraph if anyone else wishes to reference the exact text.

You will be hard pressed to find a chaos player anywhere that is going to get their hopes up over the possibility of actual rules for Chaos variants of Knights. GW cant even be bothered to finish up the reboxing of the current minis, or to give us a plastic kit for Oblits or havocs before they branch into the new IG dex and kits. I have always found it amusing how we get trolled so hard for being "whiney" about topics such as these when GW has demonstrated time and again they have no intention of putting the kind of work into chaos that they do into the imperials. Out of all the new recent releases chaos has gotten pretty much nothing of real value....Black legion dex is barely mediocre, the crimson slaughter dex is a frakkin joke, possesed squads with nasty new rules for melee in a game that has evolved into 90% shooting....they did put out a gorgeous new hell brute model but then that is made moot by the fact that its a hell brute model. really when you look at the overall selection of CSM in general there are a hand full of things that are classified as "good"... like heldrakes for example. But then if someone fields 3 to 4 of them they complain about them. (which is ridiculous in in its own right since snap fire into their rear armor can bring them crashing down in a single dice roll) Chaos is an acquired taste... and if you play them you just have to resign yourself to the fact that you will always receive the shaft when it comes to new goodies or just love what they are and accept that GW doesn't give a frak about you as the player and consumer of their product.

Like many other Chaos players I was hopeful that the rules for knights would allow them to be fielded with my followers of the ruinous powers... it would have made sense... their was fluff for it and to GW it was just more money to be made. Knights wouldn't have been that bad of a creation if they didn't allow them to be allied with any of the current armies and just let them be a stand alone force. They could have went as far as presenting Lords of War rules for them and priced them accordingly for those who could take them.... The bottom line is Knights are a undercosted super heavy with a Strength D weapon that explodes in a apocalyptic blast for core 40k and they just don't have any place in current regular 40k setting as they stand right now as allied detachments. The current super heavies allowed required their own special set of rules in the form of escalation (Lord of war slot). I am sure I will field against them at some point but it will be a game where all parties involved are cool with super heavies being present so that armies can be adjusted in preparation for them.

This is your lot in life chaos players, this is what its like to play CSMs. They can win games if you are a skilled enough player but you will always and forever be the red headed step child of 40k. Accept it or sell your minis and choose another army. GW's mantra for us has been "F@#k chaos" for a long time and there is no sign of change for that in the near future. Don't hold your breath waiting for chaos knights, or legion rules or any of that stuff... love it for what it is or don't play them. Period.

[LCS]

I think most players absent any rules descriptions for how it is handled otherwise take Come the Apocalypse to mean the two codex armies may not both be in the same army.

Personally though Id suggest if someone wants a Daemon Knight detachment, they should just model one and ask their opponent to allow for it as at least an ally of convenience. Its hardly game breaking.

Letting powerful armies have a new powerful unit might actually be game breaking. I don't know if it is, but it could be.