Friday, March 7, 2014

RTT @ Huzzah Hobbies March 16th and thoughts on how to handle codex imperial knights

Hey all,

Just wanted to let everyone know our monthly RTT at Huzzah Hobbies in Ashburn, VA will be held March 16th. Registration starts at 10am, and games begin at 10:45. If you are going to be late please call the store at 703-466-0460 and let us know.

Entry fee is $15, and covers a pizza lunch and two drinks. The remaining cash is rolled entirely into prize support.

Prize support will be based on attendance

I have not yet decided if I am going to allow Codex: Imperial Knights, pending the release of the actual book. We don't yet know if its supposed to be an escalation only deal, etc.. I'm assuming GW is essentially disregarding their own rules system, and shoving it into normal 40k. So I'm going to have to make the decision on how to handle it as the T.O.

So hear out my thoughts on this.

I don't want to ban a GW codex. It's one thing to ban clear expansions / suppliments like Escalation, its quite another to disallow Imperial Knights. My issue is, they allow D-weapons / super heavies into normal 40k, which I find to be pretty much utter trash.

I think D-Weapons and the concept behind super heavies ruin the game. They turn what should be a strategy game into a race for the bottom, he who spends the most wins the most. While this is more or less true in 40k as a general rule (buying up the latest and greatest armies), two wrong's do not make a right. Subverting the current problem with newer and bigger problems does not solve the original problem. To make it worse, it's a slippery slope. If I allow one super heavy, why not allow others? In addition, as it appears codex imperial knights can only ally with Imperial armies, this is yet another game enhancer that benefits the currently powerful armies (as for some stupid reason tau and elder can ally w/ them too), while hurting the underpowered armies  (ork, cron, chaos ect).

So I will post later this week after I read the damn thing, and hopefully after feedback from readers and other 40kers to decide if I'm going to allow this into our 40k games.

I have been toying with some ideas for changes to D-Weapons. Something that maintains a good power level of what the D once was so as to not be retarded bad, but doesn't make it the monster. Because as I said, slippery slope, we don't want to change the D-weapon, then have to change it again to compensate for some other crazy codex.

So my proposal for how the D should be changed rolls something like this:
 All D-weapons become S10, Ap1, removes model from play on the role of a 6 to wound with no saves of any kind allowed, and ignores eternal warrior ect.
When taking a cover save against a D-weapon, subtract 1 from your best possible cover save. (This means at best you should only ever get a 3+ cover save vs. a D).
Against vehicles, may re-roll armor pen and armor penetration results.

I feel this lets D-weapons still feel powerful, but not break the game.

Now what to do about the super-heavies?

Well super heavy walkers move 12, which is more or less ok. But their real issue is their stomp attack. It's really powerful, deceptively so, if you've never played against a walker doing it. It's basically another D-weapon attack.

So my proposal would be, stomp becomes S7, Ap3, may not be placed over models which are not engaged in the current combat.

Could also change the S / AP value to be S4 Ap2, as another direction to go with that.

So, would appreciate any and all feedback on said topic. When thinking about these things, don't think only in the context of imperial knights either, think long term, and application to other D-weapon wielding units / super heavies. B/c this thing is slippery slope, if GW is willing to put out one, they're probably going to put out more.


1850 pts

We allow all codex's, dataslates, and stronghold assault - EXCLUDING any AV15 buildings, D-Weapons, networked buildings..

Formations are allowed, but are treated as a separate special detachment whose limit is 0-1, so multiple formations are not allowed.

Escalation is not allowed.

Forgeworld 40k approved models are only allowed if we are contacted in advance of the event to ask about specific models. This allows us to review the rules of the model in question and determine if its reasonable or not.  Please contact me or leave a reply to this post to ask.

We will be following NOVA Open FAQ's unless otherwise stated by the judge at the event.

Proxies are totally fine as long as they are roughly the same size as the model being proxies, and use the same base.

Painting is not required.

This event is run and tracked in torrent of fire.


  1. I agree on the super heavy rules you have laid out and think the S4 ap2 is more appropriate for the stomp.

    1. So it cannot hurt a rear armor 11 vehicle in CC or an AV11+ Walker? That is a little weaksauce in my opinion (this is coming from a CSM player who lives in CC).

    2. you are going to use your str 10 HOW, and 3-4 str 10 ap1 attacks ( these will auto glance). Stomp is for infantry combat.

    3. Very weak for 400pt Walker to be honest.
      Not saying they should be str10, ap1 or anything but the str7, ap3 seems very reasonable to me.

  2. Hey guys, first off wanted to thank you for running these events. I really look forward to them each month.
    I am fine with your changes and rules. Though the Knights are gonna completely destroy my poor CSM armies since I gotta CC them to death /scary!

    1. Glad you enjoy them Joseph! We also appreciate the attendance! =0

  3. Havn't decided to allow them yet =0 well shall see!

  4. My only $.02 is I think anything that breaks "starhammer" is good for the brains of our players and the diversity of the meta. Stars being countered by some other stars isn't exactly diverse or interesting. In this particular moment, I'm speaking only as a player - starhammer is not an enjoyable game in comparison to any of the past editions, IMHO.

    1. I agree with this pretty much.
      While personally I am the type to play whatever someone sets opposite me, I do get annoyed when I have to face "Seer Council" followed by "Beast-Star".

      With that said, I think of all the things (currently) that can break up Deathstars the Knights are the least intrusive to the game. D-Weaponry pretty much gets rid of any "Star" in game and it also wrecks the heck out of things that are not Deathstars.

    2. Though the knights can and will be taken by the other star's as allies etc. ( eldar, Tau, SM )

    3. Most deathstars cost near or above 1k pts total. So really if they want to add a 400pt Knight on top of it they will not have much of anything else.

  5. couple things..
    1. D weapons in CC are an entirely different animal than ranged D-weapons, so bear that in mind before you start fiddling w/ D-weapons overall. And for those that forgot, you must roll to wound/penetrate even with a D weapon, and a 1 still fails to wound.
    2. The stomp attack is /not/ "basically another D-weapon attack." Roll a dice, nothing on a 1, S6 AP4 hits on 2-5, and D on a 6. 16.7% of the time is hardly reliable. Ask a terminator. Your proposed S7 stomp would actually /increase/ the power of the stomp.
    3. Yes, it's a superheavy, but it's also not /that/ fast, as it still can only go 6" through any sort of terrain.
    4. I think Necron players can attest that AV13 is indeed able to be penetrated by a great many things. My oft-killed maulerfiends can also testify that AV12 with a 5++ hardly guarantees survivability. So, AV13/12 with a 4++ on a single side is hardly a deal breaker.
    5. Knights have a great number of widely available and popular specific hard counters like fliers, FMC's, masses of fearless troops, etc.
    6. Knights have the /potential/ to help shift the meta on the deathstars most of us seem to hate. If you start screwing with D weapons (cc or otherwise), you lose that and we are back to shitty deathstar's PLUS have started down the near vertical slippery slope of messing with game mechanics.

    1. All my comments boil down to "Let's actually try them with rules as provided so we at least have a baseline to measure their performance before determining how we need to change them".

  6. For my thoughts at the moment, 1-2 knights in an army isn't all that crazy just as they are. Not being jump infantry and having a huge base means you can largely pen them in with weaker troops as well and seriously hamper their movement. 5 on the other hand I am not so sure on. Will need to see it on the table I think to really judge it.

    Another part of having 5 means that they have to be both your offensive units and your objective holders. This will make them very poor against armies which can outflank, deepstrike, etc. and force them to split up across the board combined with hobbling their movement. All of that is theory though unitl I really try it.