Imperial Knights...what the...

[Ivarr]

So, I hear a lot of talk about banning or restricting knights now that they are lords of war...so my question is are we really going to start banning entire factions? Unlike the wraithknight, restricting knights actually stops the use of an entire codex as a primary detachment.?

[Path Walker]

Its really up to who you play with, 40K has always been about playing with another person, the rules are now more explicit about having a conversation with your opponent before you play about the type of game you're planning.

Some armies struggle with Knights, making games where you face 3 or 4 of them not much fun for your opponent. But you can always think of something to balance that out, like changing the victory conditions or something to fit the narrative you're faced with.

40K is becoming less and less suitable for play in a competitive setting or with someone you've never spoken to, and more about telling a story with your armies, I personally don't see that as a bad thing.

[40kGamer]

Knights have great potential for creating some of the most unbalanced games imaginable so I can see why events (which are basically random games) may take issue with them. Still I really prefer that things are not banned. I even wish events found a way to allow unbound although the pitfalls from a powergaming standpoint are painfully obvious.

[Houghten]

Unlike the wraithknight, restricting knights actually stops the use of an entire codex as a primary detachment.?

Isn't that more of a result of having a codex that consists entirely of a single unit?

[daboarder]

its unlikely that tournaments will ban them entirely, maybe they will just cap the number of units that you are allowed. Afterall, you are correct in your statement that their exists a considerable difference between an imperial knight and an eldar one.

Im also willing to put money on which posters will/have attacked the tournament organizers about this (heres a hint, they are the ones screaming that balance isn't important because its up to the players to fix the game)

[Mr Mystery]

Outside of organised play, all is fair game.

I have a burgeoning Knight force because I really, really like the models - they're ace.

Would I use it without warning in my local store/club? Nope. It's a very specialised army, and an opponent should be at least aware of what they're about to face.

But those who refuse point blank? Got no time for such persons. Knights are tough, but far from unassailable given prior warning! The game is about challenge, embrace it.

[Reldane]

But those who refuse point blank? Got no time for such persons. Knights are tough, but far from unassailable given prior warning! The game is about challenge, embrace it.

I really would like to agree with you, in an ideal world every army would have a reasonable chance against every other army (depending on unit selection and tactics) but in all honesty some armies lack the firepower to really stop a knight and whilst they aren't overbearing in close combat anything that doesn't strike before them is a risky choice.

example 1 tyranids
BS of 3 on most units combined with no ranged ap means shots can at most inflict a single hull point. a hive tyrant can get into the sides to make use of str 6 shots but most other units are effectively useless in this match up. in close combat the lack of Initiative hurts their anti tank monstrous creatures meaning they have to weather the knights str D attacks first.

example 2 grey knights
low model count, and lacking a lot of ranged firepower, psycannons can hurt the knight but the sear weight of shots needed makes it a poor match up. they have it slightly better than tyranids in close combat, if the squad can survive to Initiative 1 then daemon hammers can hurt the knight. Its not undo-able but certainly they will struggle into a full knights list.

so the question is; should you expect your opponent to play a game they are unlikely to enjoy, purely for your benefit? personally I feel that set up takes just simply too long for me to play a game with a less than 20% chance to win.

[daboarder]

Remeber folks, its up to YOU and YOUR opponent, not GW to balance the game.

But if you refuse to play MY way because its not fun for you then you are THAT GUY and should be ashamed.

No dont look at me like that, Im the one that knows how to play so that both players have fun, clearly you are not.

See

[LCS]

How often do all Imperial Knight armies win tournaments? Isn't the answer almost never? So why should they be restricted over far more ridiculous armies like Tyranids with 9 FMC? Or the fact Eldar dominated with some variation of Wave Serpent spam + Wraightknight friends for a year without limiting them? I rarely see IK do well, but they seem to get more hate than anything else. Usually they just end up being an expensive way to grant a competent opponent first blood.

[daboarder]

How often do all Imperial Knight armies win tournaments? Isn't the answer almost never? So why should they be restricted over far more ridiculous armies like Tyranids with 9 FMC? Or the fact Eldar dominated with some variation of Wave Serpent spam + Wraightknight friends for a year without limiting them? I rarely see IK do well, but they seem to get more hate than anything else. Usually they just end up being an expensive way to grant a competent opponent first blood.

How often do nids with 9 FMC's win tournaments?

Probably less often that Knight armies.

Also, even before this most tournaments that have been running limitations would likely have disallowed/heavily comped all knight armies. Much like they likely Comped Wave Serpent Spam (you are right WSS was worse than all knight armies) or likely comped the Flying Tyrant spam (Because Crones are a bit of a joke in 7th)

These same tournaments will likely comp the new Wraith Spam as well.

Becuase the idea is that they want to restrict your choices so that any army has a reasonable chance of facing any other army instead of getting screwed because they brought a knife and the other guy brought a shotgun