I do not believe that GW in general are so ignorant as to not understand the meaning of the word feudal. The use of this word to mean "low tech" is an appalling mistake.

You might think it doesn't matter, that you can say what you like since it's a made up universe. Sorry guys it's not a made up universe, it's a universe inspired by and grounded in a mix of history and fantasy fiction. i.e. the kind of stuff that Rick Priestly, John Blanche at all read in their youth's. As such 40k does a remarkable job of being true to history and culture. In a sense and if you keep you eyes open it does quite a good educational job! Point is you can't just do as you wish.

Have low tech worlds if you if you like. Call em Primative Worlds, Dark Age Worlds whatever, but using the word feudal is a foolish mistake when you stop to consider that the entire imperium is feudal. Something that people forgot.

We can see clearly the tought processes of the original Knights Authors.

We're going to have Knights, what's they background?
Well what are knights?
Knights live in castles surrounded by agricultural land, Apart from agricuture there is no industry and technology is low, bows and arrows, swords etc. They are the warrior elite and owe their privlage to their Baron and King.
How do we translate that to 40K?
Stick them on backwater low tech agri world planets. Separate and local. Not integral with mainstream imperial society.

DOH! Too literal!

As previously noted , apart from technology, the entire imperium is Medieval, in so many ways. You are suggesting that knights, the signature item of a medieval world should be kept seperate and not a major, integral and widespread part of the imperium? Forget about the technology aspect, that's just not important. It's not important in the same way that a space marine carries a bolter rather than a crossbow. (btw have you ever wondered why they decided on the name Bolter? I have just given you a clue here)

Either is good. You where in favour of an agri world as a nod to the past background. Fair enough
I was in favour of something else, in order to hammer home a point regarding Knights.
In the end I'm happy with either, though certainly I think a mining world would work for your overall needs.

Agri Worlds are actually very high tech worlds. Imagine a planet with flat contintnes, no hills only endless endless fields of crops where giant harvester engines crawl over the fields. The weather certainly is artificially controlled to insure the maximum output of the farms.

And there is a difference between Knight and knight. Knights are big bipedal machines only used on certain Feudal Worlds which then are called Knight Worlds. But knights can be found over the entire Imperium including Knight Worlds.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

High tech Agri Worlds, or low tech 'Feudal Worlds' which is it?
Why are Knights used only on low tech feudal worlds? Don't see any reason why they wouldn't be used everywhere.
Why would a Warrior Knight from any part of the Imperium not have this ancient but high tech mechanicus built gear as his family heirloom?

I think you're just tenaciously trying to defending the undefendable; duff background from back in the day.

That old stuff is just confusing and wrong. There's Knights and there's knights, pah!

Start again. You might as well, GW have let this concept stagnate for years. You have a model called a Knight, you want to use it in your games. You need to develop a background for it. From first principles which translation into the 40k world makes most sense? Mine or the Old stuff?

Because Knight Worlds are a special case. Before the Great Crusade the Mechanicum had send out several expedition fleets. The tech-priests found planets with rich minerals and ore which would become Forge Worlds. On other systems they found human inhabited worlds where a feudal society and medieval level of technology had been developed. These Feudal Worlds with a connection to the Mechanicum would develope into Knight Worlds as the Mechanicum's Forge World will trade technology for food and other needed stuff with the Knight World.

The tech-priests might have found other types of civilizations but it seems that only ore/minera-rich planets (where it doesn't matter who lives there if anyone) and Feudal planets (whose society they could use as fiefdom) where of interest to them.
It is of self-interest to the Mechanicum that they hold "their" Knight Worlds on a certain level of technology and only to provide the ruling caste (the nobility = knights) with the technology required to maintain their rule (Knights).

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

That's the background yes, but it's still crap. Theres so many holes in the logic, some gaping.
...
I was going to list them, but instead can anyone else punch those holes for me?

But at the end of they day it all boils down to: you don't need to do feudal twice. The Imperium is already it. This, i have suggested, is what the original author missed in his rubbish background. He didn't see the Imperium that way, as many people missed at the time and continue to miss even to this day.

And why is that important? You want something called Knights. Knights = feudal. The imperium is feudal, therefore knights live in the imperium and all over the imperium. That, therefore the best place for them. Not in obscure low tech worlds. The background is just justiifcation, rationale, a background story for a mistaken and too literal vision from a man who didn't really get it at the time.

Like I said, start from scratch and what I've said makes more sense.

Or, like much of the early GW writings, it's an intentional piece of irony.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Tell you what as a concession:

We have, in the past an advanced, romanesque, civilaization spreading out and encountering low tech (barbarian) tribes. Perhaps then word we're looking for is Thanes or Carls or something, rather than knights. That fits.
What doesn't quite fit is that the world has sinced moved on and we're now in medeival gothic world and these barbarian states have not progressed with the rest (because, for totally obscure reasons, they haven't been allowed to). That's ok, we don't need exact parallels with history - just the spirit.

Much better. Knights belong in the medieval world, Barbarian warriiors to the more primative world outside.

Ha Ha, could have been! That would be typical. And a lot of people, even other GW writers didn't get the joke!

This is a complete digression, but I would argue the Imperium is not feudal. It is totalitarian and communist/fascist. In practice there are isolated groups fall through the cracks of central planning and authoritarianism but any feudalism is ad hoc government in areas where the "real" government has broken down.

This reminds me of a discussion I had with my wife only the other day. We where watching star wars (prequal) with my 3 year old.
She was saying "I don't get it. It's a high tech world why does everyone where silly outfits from the past?"
My answer

It's the chosen asthetic that's all. Star Wars as a remake of (or at least inspired by) the Hidden Fortress which is set in medieval Japan. The asthetic is there just for the hell off it. (Yes star wars does have some roman elements in it too)

Same's true here. Overriding all is the 40k asthetic. It is seriously gothic, seriously medeival. Yes there are many elements from elsewhere but the overall theme is gothic. Uber or Hyper gothic I call it.

I repeat
Space Marines (crusader knights if i'm not mistaken)
Inquisition
Ecclesiarchy
Adeptus Sorioritas.
Etc

Totalitarian and communist it ain't. Though there is a slight nod towards that in some of the asthetics.
Of course, every emperor would certainly like things to be that way and often believes it is.

40k is Warhammer in space, which in tern is a translation of history into a fantasy world

Marines have their own power to a high degree
As do the mechanicus
As do most worlds.

The emperor, like any emperor, does not and cannot control the entire empire on his own. (check your history)
He relies on Lords, Barons, Dukes, Governers whatever you call them to owe him allegiance in return for the status he is given.
Governers can do pretty much what they like so long as they abide by a few imperial dictates (Pax Imperium anyone, the maintian of the Imperial Peace?)

Other than that a governer can rule as he pleases, tax as he likes. Set any kind of policy he wishes. There is no overall state control over every detail as there is in a modern nation state or a communist state.

And If any lord does not, then an emperor must replace him, usually involving some kind of war.
Of course, the imperial army is only one tool in the emperor's tool box with which he can maintain overall unity. In some cases the only serious link is the imperial cult.

As Voltaire said of the Holy Roman Empire, It's not holy, it's not Roman, and it's not an Empire!
Sorry, but the same's true here. Don't be fooled by the communist rhetoric!

Dude, its imaginary.

And we don't have the 'canon' authority to change the written background.

That's why I'm going to endeavour to make a nod to the old background (Setting in on an Ad-Mech agri-world), without going overboard.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

Not completely it isn't. And I'm not interested in a totally made up sci-fi background. If I was, there's plenty else on offer out there. It's one of the unique points of 40k. I love the fact it has a basis in other things.

As to authority, you're right. However, if we so wished (and I'm feeling here that I'm the only one) we can develop this and present it to GW, saying "you know that Knights stuff you developed years and years ago and haven't touched since? Well if you wanted to update it how about something like this?"

Such development might be on the cards at some point, I'm sure GW or at least Forgeworld will be wanting to produce 40k scale knight models.

I'll grant it is a sensible and practicable middle ground