Forgeworld Knights being used in Codex: IK - Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums
40k Rules Discussion Post any Warhammer 40k rules queries and discussions here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 05:02 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xabre's Avatar
Xabre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,848
Reputation: 72
Default Forgeworld Knights being used in Codex: IK

So this has come up a bunch lately on FB, and like most GW/FW rules, I have yet to see anyone with a definitive lay on what the exact ruling should be. The most recent appearance of this was in an AdMech group, and after I laid down what I felt was a very compelling argument, the other guy said 'well, I'm bored of this, so I'm just going to use the RAW'.

The Cerastus-class knights that Forgeworld has created all have a rule attached to them that state that in any Codex: Imperial Knights army (which means Oathsworn or Household Detachment, Exalted Court Formation, or Baronial Court Formation), you can not have more of <insert this Knight's name here> than any other knight.

The biggest time this issue crops up is with the Oathsworn Detachment, which allows 1-3 knights. It's especially prevalent now with the AdMech War Convocation.

My argument is that if you're using an Oathsworn, and you only ran ONE single knight, then it could not be any of the Cerastus-class knights, because by having one, you would have more of that knight than any other.

Other people have argued that by only having one knight, there are no other knights to compare to, therefore the rule does not apply.

(And yes, I will admit that ITC has gone with that ruling, stating you are allowed one FW knight in an Oathsworn on its own.)


Ignoring ITC, since really, that's just a tournament with its own homebrew rules, I'd like to hear people's opinions on this.

TL;DR - 1 > 0, you can't have a FW knight by itself.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Cerastus rules.jpg (46.5 KB, 0 views)

Xabre is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 05:25 PM
Senior Member
 
Tyriks's Avatar
Tyriks's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 326
Reputation: 6
Default

RAW, I agree with you. Seems like they probably didn't mean it that way, but that is what it says.

Also, to promote rarity, it seems like just a hard limit on them would make more sense (i.e. only one at a time no matter what, or something).
Tyriks is offline  
post #3 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 05:37 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xabre's Avatar
Xabre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,848
Reputation: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyriks View Post
RAW, I agree with you. Seems like they probably didn't mean it that way, but that is what it says.

Also, to promote rarity, it seems like just a hard limit on them would make more sense (i.e. only one at a time no matter what, or something).
The Knight Atropos, which is the newest one, actually has that hard limit in a Questoris HH army list.

Xabre is offline  
 
post #4 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 05:44 PM
Senior Member
 
R_Squared's Avatar
R_Squared's Flag is: England
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Boston, Lincolnshire
Posts: 522
Reputation: 40
Default

Seems pretty clear to me. If there are no other knights in your army, then you haven't got more than any other knight if you only have a Cerastus.
There are no other knights.

I think you're just reading what you want to read. To me, RAW and RAI are the same here.
It would have been simpler to state a restriction of one per army. But then, if you had 3 other knights, then you could have 2 cerastus knights and FW would like that.
R_Squared is offline  
post #5 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 05:48 PM
Rattlehead
 
MidnightSun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83
Default

One Cerastus and no regular Knights is more Cerastus than regular Knights.

Given that the Cerastus class Knights are insane compared to regular Knights, I think it's a good thing that they're restricted by having to be brought with at least one other normal Knight.

Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).
MidnightSun is offline  
post #6 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 05:58 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xabre's Avatar
Xabre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,848
Reputation: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R_Squared View Post
Seems pretty clear to me. If there are no other knights in your army, then you haven't got more than any other knight if you only have a Cerastus.
There are no other knights.

I think you're just reading what you want to read. To me, RAW and RAI are the same here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MidnightSun View Post
One Cerastus and no regular Knights is more Cerastus than regular Knights.
I think, @R_Squared , that it's not 'pretty clear' if two posts within minutes of each other can be so polar opposite of each other.

But I ask you a question:

If I have an apple, and you have no fruit of any kind... do I have more fruit than you? or am I not allowed to compare BECAUSE you have no fruit?

0 is still a number in all mathematic equations. Why is quantity 0 of other knights not allowed to be compared?

Xabre is offline  
post #7 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 06:10 PM
Senior Member
 
ntaw's Avatar
ntaw's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 6,323
Reputation: 99
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xabre View Post
1 > 0, you can't have a FW knight by itself
This one. Granted I'm always more interested in playing the game than bickering with people about what models they're allowed to play and as such I would definitely allow my opponent to play his Cerastus-type Knight in whatever army. Tournaments are a different thing of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xabre View Post
Ignoring ITC
Forever and always. Every time someone waves an ITC FAQ in my face it's one less person to worry about gaming with. Seriously, read through some of that drivel and try not to laugh.

Unless of course you're playing at an ITC event...but then you're with your kind and it's all good.

Unfortunately Canada got rid of the penny and now my two cents rounds down to zero, so...take it for what you will.

40k Army Projects

Industrial Table WIP
ntaw is offline  
post #8 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 06:19 PM
Rattlehead
 
MidnightSun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Sheoth
Posts: 6,741
Reputation: 83
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntaw View Post
Forever and always. Every time someone waves an ITC FAQ in my face it's one less person to worry about gaming with. Seriously, read through some of that drivel and try not to laugh.

Unless of course you're playing at an ITC event...but then you're with your kind and it's all good.
Other than the missions, what do you have against the ITC? I thought their FAQ was pretty good with a few exceptions (the only bit I don't like off the top of my head is Maelstrom scored on game turns, which favors the player who went second way too much).

On topic, you have one Cerastus Knight, and you have zero normal Knights. Do you have at least as many regular Imperial Knights as you have Cerastus class? No, and therefore you break the condition.

Creator of Utilitarian Ultramarines Memes - join the XIII on Facebook (no XVII allowed).
MidnightSun is offline  
post #9 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 06:35 PM
Senior Member
 
ntaw's Avatar
ntaw's Flag is: Canada
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississauga, Canada
Posts: 6,323
Reputation: 99
Default

@MidnightSun , was the second half of that directed toward me? I was agreeing with you and Xabre about the rule but I would likely let my opponent do it anyway because models on the table are better than models off the table (in my permanently casual games, of course).

As for ITC I will say this. It's cool if that's what you're into, but people that accept it as the way and the light and expect all others (even those unfamiliar with ITC in any faculty whatsoever) to accept it into their games can be buggered. I agree there are some decent points made in it. None that changed my life, but I get that some people have the tightest of buttholes when it comes to this game. The points where they straight up change the way GW wrote the rules make me lose all respect for it. For example, their notions of how blast weapons work specifically contradict the BRB with regards to levels in terrain and wounds being allocated out of LoS via scatter. However, this really isn't the place to discuss it.

Unfortunately Canada got rid of the penny and now my two cents rounds down to zero, so...take it for what you will.

40k Army Projects

Industrial Table WIP
ntaw is offline  
post #10 of 26 (permalink) Old 01-28-16, 06:43 PM Thread Starter
Senior Member
 
Xabre's Avatar
Xabre's Flag is: USA
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,848
Reputation: 72
Default

For those curious, this is what was told to me is the official ITC ruling for this argument:

Quote:
Cerastus Knights:
You may not include more of any one type of Imperial Armour Cerastus Knight (e.g. Archeron, Castigator, etc.) in your entire army, including those taken as a Lord of War choice, than you have other type of Imperial Knight in your entire army.

That means, for example:
-An army could include a Knight Detachment comprised of 3 Cerastus Knight-Acherons, as well as 1 Cerastus Knight-Acheron included as a Lord of War.

-An army could include a Knight Detachment comprised of 2 Knight Paladins and 1 Cerastus Knight-Acheron, as well as another Cerastus Knight-Acheron as a Lord of War.

-An army could include just a Knight Detachment comprised of 1 Cerastus Knight-Acheron, 1 Cerastus Knight-Castigator and 1 Cerastus Knight-Lancer.

Xabre is offline  
Reply

  Lower Navigation
Go Back   Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums > Warhammer 40K > 40k Rules Discussion

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Wargaming Forum and Wargamer Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome