Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
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.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
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.
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
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.

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.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
@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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
For those curious, this is what was told to me is the official ITC ruling for this argument:

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
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.
That's a whole four more Cerastus <type> Knights than other types of Knights. This is not RAW.

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.
Two and two, these are simple maths right? There isn't more Cerastus Knights than other Knights so it's cool. Plus the LoW slot doesn't have the same stipulation as the C:IK blurb does.

An army could include just a Knight Detachment comprised of 1 Cerastus Knight-Acheron, 1 Cerastus Knight-Castigator and 1 Cerastus Knight-Lancer.
One of each doesn't contradict the wording of 'you cannot have more Cerastus <insert type> Knights in your army than you have of any other kind' either.

Another fine example of ITC making normal statements that anyone with half an IQ point could surmise and one that's a total contradiction to the RAW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
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?
Because it's an attempt at being a rules lawyer. If you want to view it that way, and whoever you are playing with agrees, no problem, crack on.

You asked for opinion, I read the rule, and I gave it. I don't think someone shouldn't be able to play their Cerastus knight because there are no apples, or whatever. I played against one the other day, and it was rare, because it was the only knight on the table, and I'd never played against it before. :grin:

It was even rarer after it blew up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,689 Posts
...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.
While I cannot +Rep ya for this ntaw, I do think that there are portions of the ITC that I like, as a whole "Take it or leave it" though, I'm leaving it.

Then again I don't really play anymore, and if I do, it's not with a competitive mind frame.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
But, it is a forge world rule, they're usually pretty good with FAQs, why not ask them to confirm rather than argue on the Internet? They could easily clarify it by stating that the Cerastus may only be taken alongside other knights.

Their response to that question has been: figure it out amongst your friends.

Hi There and thanks for your email,

I would say that with regards to the legal use of any models or rules in any game all depends on how you and your friends would like to play. The rules are not designed to restrict you in what you are and are not allowed to do as after all the game is part of a larger hobby and is instead intended to be used as you see fit.

Please be aware that as a customer service team we are unable to comment on rules questions, quires or clarifications in any official capacity, all official rules are sanctioned by our company design teams.

I have passed on your email to them and we know that they will read through questions and address them as and when they are needed.

For now, we in the Forge World Customer service team champion the "House Ruling system" and suggest having a conversation over the rules at hand with the groups you play games with and see which of these interpretations) are the best for your games.
All official rules will be released via the webstore downloads page and or in one of our Imperial Armour books.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
522 Posts
In that case, that's all you can do until they FAQ it. There is no definitive answer when you get to stalling points in semantics such as this unfortunately.

That is a mildly insipid and "corporate line" answer from FW though, particularly;

The rules are not designed to restrict you in what you are and are not allowed to do
This demonstrates a clear disconnect in lateral thinking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,323 Posts
The rules are not designed to restrict you in what you are and are not allowed to do as after all the game is part of a larger hobby and is instead intended to be used as you see fit.
Holy fuck I actually really like that they said this. Honestly if you can't figure it out between friends or accept a tournament ruling I feel like you care a bit too much about the game.

**royal 'you', this is in no way directed at Xabre or anyone in particular**

I do think that there are portions of the ITC that I like, as a whole "Take it or leave it" though, I'm leaving it.
Same (obviously), but those the things I agree with them about are easy enough to figure out between who you're gaming with. Did we really need ITC to tell us that your opponent can't place a DS mishap unit where it would mishap a second time or is someone just trying to break a friendly game and win as best as they can?
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
What a terribly unhelpful answer! If playing among your friends, you could house rule anything, so that is just completely meaningless.
This. I don't think I know anyone who plays exact RAW anyway, because you pretty much can't, but just repeating Rule One and handwaving it away as 'do what you like' isn't really a helpful answer to anyone.

I don't know if I like how GW's getting much better on prices/non-miniature products and much worse on rules. I was kinda happy when it was expensive as all get out for a really good product, rather than cheaper and not as good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,848 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
This. I don't think I know anyone who plays exact RAW anyway, because you pretty much can't, but just repeating Rule One and handwaving it away as 'do what you like' isn't really a helpful answer to anyone.
This is my biggest issue here also. I get a lot of people just saying 'well, just come up with rules with your friends and call it a day'.

However, what happens when you show up at a store, and you only have, for instance, your FW Atrapos with you? But then you find people who only run the rules to the other side instead? Suddenly you have the wrong model, wasted your afternoon, etc etc.

We shouldn't need to hand-wave, rules should simply be clear.

Right now this debate is still raging on various FB groups. It died out on one 40k group because they're mostly ITC players, and anything they say is the 3rd tablet. Now it's starting up on a dedicated AdMech group, and one guy is throwing out snap shots of the rules (same pic I posted) and saying 'see, it's in a formation, you can do anything you want with it!'.


What I don't understand is the idea of not counting 0 as a number. A lot of people seem to think that if you 'don't have something' then it can't be compared to. Therefore, 1 FW knight and no other knights is legit, because you don't count 0.

Maybe it's because I'm a computer guy? But 0 is an integer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
What I don't understand is the idea of not counting 0 as a number. A lot of people seem to think that if you 'don't have something' then it can't be compared to. Therefore, 1 FW knight and no other knights is legit, because you don't count 0.

Maybe it's because I'm a computer guy? But 0 is an integer.
I'm not even a little bit technical/mathematical in my thinking, but I agree with you. I don't know why someone would think that makes sense.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top