Araablane wrote: Any idea when knights get Psyhic awakening book?
I need 2 armigers but no idea what to get, what are currently the best ones?
I think April
Depends if your willing to forgeworld
Double Lightning locks Moirax is probably the best of the bunch. For standard plastic I’d rate Hellverins over warglaives but it depends on what your taking with them and what your game plan is.
After having my last game back in late 5th Edition I came back 2 months ago and on Saturday will be my 1st match since back then.
It's gonna be 2k pts, me vs 1k SW with double smash captains and a pack of Wulfen and mostly Intercessors and 1k Imperial Guard. The Guard player is so kind to squish a shadowsword into that list as some hardcounter.
My list will look like that:
Knights: (Taranis)
1x Castellan
2x Crusader (1 with battle cannon)
So as that's basicly the models I have and therefore can't change that list, are there tips you could give me from a tactical perspective? Besides praying for having 1st turn.... It's gonna be tough enough to screen my knights before the captains slam into my lines but that shadowsword with its gun is already giving me nightmares xD
Ideasweasel wrote: Anyone find it odd the pirates leaked 3/4 of the armies info in engine war then got bored and left us hanging?
I suspect the Imperial Knights rules given the talk in the previews is actually less rules than the choas knights got so in all honesty I think they probably just didn't bother as I think the Admech was one leak and the other leaker is a choas aligned player.
Though the aligence buffs for imperial house holds better be decent though as it currently looks like their will be more strategums that are not usable untill the edition changes because of having minimal CP mono, but nothing has changes the underlying thing that makes most people play mechanics and the mechanicus buff was garbage, most times knights get one round killed let alone 1 turn, it's a BS buff.
Drdotts wrote: I’m at least hoping in 9th that we get a boos from not having to take CP batteries and can field more of just a pure knight household army
Some of us have been doing that anyway, the biggest issue currently is the amount of mortal wounds being handed out like Candy like Demons now have a unit that can do 12 MW on the charge. Admech have some insane wombo vombos that can kill a knight with 1 units in 1 round. The CP thing is a boost but really I just hope that we can actually benifit from terrain or it won't matter as opponenrt will still take 1 or 2 knights of the table turn 1 and that's not recoverable.
I could do with an enthusiasm boost. Not sure if I was expecting too much or this book just isn’t that great
For 9th or Engine war?
If it's Engine war I haven't seen the Inperial knights stuff.
9th, certainly CP is good, points increases not so much, Mission design need more but hopeful.
Was referring to the above. Nothing ground breaking that fixes some of the impossible counters sadly. Lots of side grades and attempts to get us to not use crusaders.
The always hit on 4+ is great until you realise that’s going to be the standard in 9th edition anyway since modifiers are capped at -1 apparently
It looks like there are a lot more benefits for Armiger's than Questoris knights in this supplement. Some of the custom household traits really favor the little guys.
The Capacitor Charge strategim also looks interesting enough for me to consider including a Preceptor, which is saying something.
Right had more time to do some rereading and take notes.
Still feel Mechnicus has a significant edge in houses to pick due to Machine Spirit Strategum.
The Questor Allegiance bonus are very disappointing the mechanicus one was meh but the imperialus one is okay if your playing a full rush but doesnt stack with landstrider so mostly just comes of as why?
Warlord Traits
Mechanicus ones
+2 wounds is ok I guess but ion bulwork exsists and people are more than capable of 1 rounding a knights.
Cold eradication (as pointed out by U02dah4) good for a second Crusader (I'am still expecting Ion bulwork to be the go to though)
3 feels redundant if modifiers are limited as GW Implied.
Imperial
Fight first Yes
Strike and Shield Yes
Heroic intervene Meh
Non of the warlord traits feel like they are going to change the autopick combos that exsist, the imperial ones are great but locked away behind a bad aligence choice with a WTFGW questor alignece buff? (I feel calling it a buff is over selling it)
The build your own house single buffs
24 inches gain cover Bad
Reroll 1 dice per phase for number of shots per model bad
Ignores cover Meh (unless cover is way more important in 9th we shall see it's Bad)
Ignore -1AP Bad
Surviviers of Strife Okay not sure it's better than Tarranis bit its okay
Reroll wound rolls of 1 vrs Psychers and demons Meh
+1 to hit vrs modifiers (suppose this depends on how modifers work in 9th but doesnt sound great)
Build your own house Pairable Buffs
Aggresive Persecution Meh
Blessed Arms Good
Glorified History Okay
Slayers of Beasts Meh
Defient Fury Bad (how often is a half wound knight in CC)
Storm Striders Okay
Hounds of War (Good for Armiger heavy Builds)
Noble combatants meh
Exacting Charge bad
Guardiens of the frontier (how common will 11+ horde units be?)
Front-line Fighters bad
Steel-sinered Arms Bad
Sanctified Armour meh (good against GSC, GK)
So far I'm seeing Blessed Arms, StormStriders, Glorified History and Hounds of War.
Are they better than Tarranis or Krast? Not convinced.
Strategums nice but half of them still cost CP on overcosted models.
The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.
Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.
Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.
Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?
Something to keep in mind with prices is that they are changing, universally. I'm not optimistic that Knights will become more reasonable compared to everyone else, but its not impossible either.
Basically these abilities are an improvement. Some units are really coming out ahead like Warglaives getting extra attacks when pack-attacking something. I'm going to wait and see what comes out for 9th edition before I judge this supplement based on truths that apply to 8th edition.
I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions.
I think the big winners are Armigers, and by extension the Preceptor. The custom traits referring to melee weapons besides Titanic Feet still apply to Sweeping Warglaives. That's probably the ticket to maximizing the trait's value.
With the changes to detachment CP generation revealed for 9th, it may be more viable to run packs of Armigers as their own detachment. I could see packs of 3 or 4 Warglaives with something like Hounds of War and Exacting Charge. They could get very fast with Stormstriders and the Questor Imperialis trait.
DarkHound wrote: I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions.
I think the big winners are Armigers, and by extension the Preceptor. The custom traits referring to melee weapons besides Titanic Feet still apply to Sweeping Warglaives. That's probably the ticket to maximizing the trait's value.
With the changes to detachment CP generation revealed for 9th, it may be more viable to run packs of Armigers as their own detachment. I could see packs of 3 or 4 Warglaives with something like Hounds of War and Exacting Charge. They could get very fast with Stormstriders and the Questor Imperialis trait.
The issue with Souping Houses ia your going to need atleast 2 detachments which now cost CP and Points are being raised so chances of you being able to bring 2 Super Heavy detachments at 2k probably just went out the window, Realistically 9th is going to be 1 Super heavy detachment and that's it unless your wanting to hemerage CP as Knights in Aux detachments don't get Taits.
Yes, it's unlikely you'll be able to soup multiple detachments of full Knights. However, my point is that Armigers already get the most benefit from custom house traits so you're extremely incentivized to use them to fill out detachments.
Every army is still going to have multiple detachments at 2k pts, and that's a mindset I think we'll have to get used to. Given that a Brigade costs 3 CP, I expect a superheavy detachment to cost 1-3 CP as well. If you're already planning on taking several Armigers, it's probably worth considering how to maximize custom traits to compliment your main force of a standard House (or, again, another faction's army).
Personally, I'm planning on taking a Preceptor with Warglaives traits to be the spearhead for my AdMech. The big traits I'm looking at are Glorified History, Aggressive Persecution, Slayers of Beasts, and Stormstriders.
U02dah4 wrote: not really given your first detatchment is free.
As to points raises we dont really have an idea how that effects knights
we also don't know what the tourney standard will be it could just as easily be 3000 pts
FLG and GW have hinded they are both aligning on 2k with Rule book matched play missions as will Nova, so far the unknow is WTC.
Getting 3 questorus knights and 1 questorus and 2 armiger knights into 2k is already pushing it, it's what i currently do, the only other option is to go more Armiger heavy but that's assuming that we don't have to take 3 questorus or bigger for our first detachment to be free.
Ice_can wrote: Right had more time to do some rereading and take notes.
Still feel Mechnicus has a significant edge in houses to pick due to Machine Spirit Strategum.
The Questor Allegiance bonus are very disappointing the mechanicus one was meh but the imperialus one is okay if your playing a full rush but doesnt stack with landstrider so mostly just comes of as why?
Warlord Traits
Mechanicus ones
+2 wounds is ok I guess but ion bulwork exsists and people are more than capable of 1 rounding a knights.
Other two just do not see the point
Imperial
Fight first Yes
Strike and Shield Yes
Heroic intervene Meh
Non of the warlord traits feel like they are going to change the autopick combos that exsist, the imperial ones are great but locked away behind a bad aligence choice with a WTFGW questor alignece buff? (I feel calling it a buff is over selling it)
The build your own house single buffs
24 inches gain cover Bad
Reroll 1 dice per phase for number of shots per model bad
Ignores cover Meh (unless cover is way more important in 9th we shall see it's Bad)
Ignore -1AP Bad
Surviviers of Strife Okay not sure it's better than Tarranis bit its okay
Reroll wound rolls of 1 vrs Psychers and demons Meh
+1 to hit vrs modifiers (suppose this depends on how modifers work in 9th but doesnt sound great)
Build your own house Pairable Buffs
Aggresive Persecution Meh
Blessed Arms Good
Glorified History Okay
Slayers of Beasts Meh
Defient Fury Bad (how often is a half wound knight in CC)
Storm Striders Okay
Hounds of War (Good for Armiger heavy Builds)
Noble combatants meh
Exacting Charge bad
Guardiens of the frontier (how common will 11+ horde units be?)
Front-line Fighters bad
Steel-sinered Arms Bad
Sanctified Armour meh (good against GSC, GK)
So far I'm seeing Blessed Arms, StormStriders, Glorified History and Hounds of War.
Are they better than Tarranis or Krast? Not convinced.
Strategums nice but half of them still cost CP on overcosted models.
mechanicus cold eradication is pretty strong on a crusader or errant its better than a reroll
11/36 chance of a 6. 9/36 chance of a 5. 7/36 chance of a 4. 5/36 chance of a 3. 3/36 chance of a 2. and 1/36 chance of a 1.
thermal cannon + stormspear+ flamer thats quite an increase
as to create your own - slayers of beasts and frontline fighters seem pretty strong. when your combat knights are hitting a MC or vehicle you want them to connect and most players want there knights closeing in on the enemy and -1 ap is nice.
DarkHound wrote: Yes, it's unlikely you'll be able to soup multiple detachments of full Knights. However, my point is that Armigers already get the most benefit from custom house traits so you're extremely incentivized to use them to fill out detachments.
Every army is still going to have multiple detachments at 2k pts, and that's a mindset I think we'll have to get used to. Given that a Brigade costs 3 CP, I expect a superheavy detachment to cost 1-3 CP as well. If you're already planning on taking several Armigers, it's probably worth considering how to maximize custom traits to compliment your main force of a standard House (or, again, another faction's army).
Personally, I'm planning on taking a Preceptor with Warglaives traits to be the spearhead for my AdMech. The big traits I'm looking at are Glorified History, Aggressive Persecution, Slayers of Beasts, and Stormstriders.
mechanicus cold eradication is pretty strong on a crusader or errant its better than a reroll
11/36 chance of a 6. 9/36 chance of a 5. 7/36 chance of a 4. 5/36 chance of a 3. 3/36 chance of a 2. and 1/36 chance of a 1.
thermal cannon + stormspear+ flamer thats quite an increase
Except that change is +5/36,+3/36, +1/36, -1/36, -3/36 and -5/36
It's an improvement but your always going to take Ion Bulwork first
Doubel crusader list yeah I could see that coming into it's own there. Shall update
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: knights are a soup army I miss the warcon
My pure lance disagrees, I'm certainly glad that atleast now I get a CP Bonus (Hopefully) for being Pure that does make adding the 17 or 32 fleshbags the way to balance the list.
DarkHound wrote: Yes, it's unlikely you'll be able to soup multiple detachments of full Knights. However, my point is that Armigers already get the most benefit from custom house traits so you're extremely incentivized to use them to fill out detachments... If you're already planning on taking several Armigers, it's probably worth considering how to maximize custom traits to compliment your main force of a standard House.
Your commenting in a Knight thread about whats going to be good for Soup in 9th thats why I heavily disagree, My knights don't want to need to bolt on some Guard or Admech and shouldn't have to.
I'd advocating principally for the use of Armigers with custom traits, not adding other factions. And anyway, are you seriously mad because I like want to play with my toy soldiers in a way you don't like?
DarkHound wrote: Yes, it's unlikely you'll be able to soup multiple detachments of full Knights. However, my point is that Armigers already get the most benefit from custom house traits so you're extremely incentivized to use them to fill out detachments... If you're already planning on taking several Armigers, it's probably worth considering how to maximize custom traits to compliment your main force of a standard House.
Your commenting in a Knight thread about whats going to be good for Soup in 9th thats why I heavily disagree, My knights don't want to need to bolt on some Guard or Admech and shouldn't have to.
I'd advocating principally for the use of Armigers with custom traits, not adding other factions. And anyway, are you seriously mad because I like want to play with my toy soldiers in a way you don't like?
It was supposed to be sarcastic, I should have made that clearer.
It was more thats why we where thinking different things are better.
DarkHound wrote: I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..
And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.
DarkHound wrote: I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..
And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.
You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.
Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.
Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?
I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:
1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.
2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.
3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.
Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)
DarkHound wrote: I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..
And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.
You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.
But only if it includes your warlord, which can be true with all Armigers but the Command benifit only kicked in originally when you took 3 questorus or Dominus class Knights, I expect that to come back if this super heavy detachment in your army includes 3 dominus or Questorus class knights and your Warlord this detachment costs 0CP. being how Knights get to be CP Neutral as it would be similar to Drukari.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.
Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.
Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?
I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:
1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.
2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.
3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.
Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)
Simply I don't understand why that would need nerfed especially given demons in the same book got a do a MW on a 2+ if you charge strategum thats 1CP.
DarkHound wrote: I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..
And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.
You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.
But only if it includes your warlord, which can be true with all Armigers but the Command benifit only kicked in originally when you took 3 questorus or Dominus class Knights, I expect that to come back if this super heavy detachment in your army includes 3 dominus or Questorus class knights and your Warlord this detachment costs 0CP. being how Knights get to be CP Neutral as it would be similar to Drukari.
Firstly, the command benefit works with 1 Knight and 2 Armigers. You get a double benefit from 3 Knights. But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.
DarkHound wrote: Firstly, the command benefit works with 1 Knight and 2 Armigers. You get a double benefit from 3 Knights. But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.
Thats the FAQ'd version which I expect to go aways as that would allow Knight allies to be CP Neutral and breaks the idea of only your Warlords detachment being free qhich they stated multiple timws during todays steam.
The codex version is as described and makes more sence for balancing the new mono vrs allies.
The Armiger detachment your describing as Allies yes but as a Main force probably not.
The 'Cut them down' strategy they previewed will really hurt Knights. Now trying to fall back from a group of Ork's or Gaunts will likely result in a few extra mortal wounds each time.
bmsattler wrote: The 'Cut them down' strategy they previewed will really hurt Knights. Now trying to fall back from a group of Ork's or Gaunts will likely result in a few extra mortal wounds each time.
True but from whatnow conflicting infor GW has shared "shouldn't" have to fall back just go absolutely ham and Avenger, flamer stormspear and battlecannon them in the face. Thrn stubber their Mek to death because stubbers.
We don't know what the 'vehicle's shoot in combat' thing will look like. They could easily impose a -1 to hit penalty, or require that you shoot only at the group you're in combat with, or require that you can shoot anyone -but- the group you're in combat with, or...
I'd rather not count on that just yet, let alone give up on striking first or buffs like the Krast re-rolls.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.
Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.
Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?
I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:
1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.
2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.
3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.
Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)
Simply I don't understand why that would need nerfed especially given demons in the same book got a do a MW on a 2+ if you charge strategum thats 1CP.
Because Bloodcrushers do not already do that?
Can you even read my posts?
The Harpoon automatically causes d3 MW to the unit damaged by the Harpoon; the strat seems to intend on only dealing d3 MWs to units within 3" of the unit damaged; not adding a second d3 MWs on the same unit. 2CP to potentially 1-shot anything Land raider/repulsor or smaller (with a guaranteed 1-shot on almost every other tank), or 3-7 dead 1W models from the harpoon alone, doesn't seem to be what was intended.
Kommissar Kel wrote: The Valiant Harpoon strat is probably going to get an FAQ nerf: as written the original target takes 2d3 MW, along with the normal damage: so 12-16 damage to any single model unit.
Not sure if the design team remembered that the damaged unit is within 3" of itself.
Actually D3 MW seems to be the going rate for 2CP.
Also how often do you see models with 3 inches of each other and within range of a 12 inche 1 shot weapon that has to hit and wound even coming up?
I think you missed the point, but I will also address what you said:
1: my point, was that the harpoon deals an inherent D3 MW to the unit damaged. The Strat seems to be intended to be used in the situations that there is a buffing unit nearby. The strat adds a second D3 MW to the originally targeted unit.
2: how often are units within 3" of each other? Fairly. Between many buff-bots having some limited ranges and lack of blast markers there is no real need not to. Also smaller screening units and disembarking units from transports.
3: and within 12" range of a 1-shot weapon that has to hit and deal damage? I think you mean within 22"-25"(questor Imperialis/landstrider for 23, or blessed arms for 24, or Imperialis and blessed arms for 25"), and again, fairly often. There are many ways to increase your to-hit, and the harppon is almost auto-wound with only invul saves allowed.
Basically, it will come up often enough to justify the strats existence; and will often be powerfull enough to justify cost for other units(often characters)
Simply I don't understand why that would need nerfed especially given demons in the same book got a do a MW on a 2+ if you charge strategum thats 1CP.
Because Bloodcrushers do not already do that?
Can you even read my posts?
The Harpoon automatically causes d3 MW to the unit damaged by the Harpoon; the strat seems to intend on only dealing d3 MWs to units within 3" of the unit damaged; not adding a second d3 MWs on the same unit. 2CP to potentially 1-shot anything Land raider/repulsor or smaller (with a guaranteed 1-shot on almost every other tank), or 3-7 dead 1W models from the harpoon alone, doesn't seem to be what was intended.
I can read I just don't understand why you think the intention is to for it to not apply to the target unit, it has to hit and wound first with a 1 shot weapon, okay it can do 10+D3MW but thats usually 12 spend 2CP to do D3 for an avarage of 2 so 14 wounds over all, just enough to kill and invictus warsuit but still less than the 16 needed for a landraider.
The splash damage is a bonus, but it's spending 2 CP for d3 MW dude that's not a great strategums unless someone is castling and you can get within 12 of a target for the harpoon, and if they can screen (as much as I detest that it's become so standard) you shouldn't be getting that close.
When was the last time someone tried to make a valient work, it suffers because its Relic flame weapon is in the Imperial side, but Mechnicus houses are generally better.
It having a 2CP startegums that allows it to splash around D3 MW onto static castles seems fair enough and my other army is Tau one of the armies most likely to be on the receiving end of said strategum.
Custom Household, warlord trait, mechanicus allegiance, plus some relics:
Mechanics Household tradition: Survivors of strife; every Armiger +1W regenerating 1 Wound/turn, the rest are +2 wounds regretting 1 Wound/turn.
Take the oft laughed at Paragon of the Omnisiah as a Warlord trait for +2 more wounds(non-armiger now has +4, Armiger +3).
Mark Of the Omnisiah on any knight from this and they are regerating 2-4 wounds almost every turn.
Going to have to try a few games with survivors of strife versus house tarranis to see which is actually better.
What I mean here is that Statistically Traditions are the same, with a slight edge to Tarranis in perfect conditions, but with the WL trait on either I thing Survivors might be slightly better.
DarkHound wrote: I think the trick to custom traits, since they are so specific in utility, is to soup different detachments with units specifically designed to maximize the traits. This is doubly true when combining with other factions..
And you have whopping 1.5 months or so to do that. Then you will be paying CP for every detachment. And unless they do some day 1 errata you will pay CP for every det since only patrol, battalion and brigade gets CP refunded if warlord is there. So 2 super heavy dets=2 det's paid for.
You're not wrong, but I'm certain we don't have the whole picture. Given that GW's stated goals with this system is to even the amount of CPs for formerly low CP factions, it's likely the Knight Lances rule will make Super-heavy Detachments a "core" detachment.
But only if it includes your warlord, which can be true with all Armigers but the Command benifit only kicked in originally when you took 3 questorus or Dominus class Knights, I expect that to come back if this super heavy detachment in your army includes 3 dominus or Questorus class knights and your Warlord this detachment costs 0CP. being how Knights get to be CP Neutral as it would be similar to Drukari.
Firstly, the command benefit works with 1 Knight and 2 Armigers. You get a double benefit from 3 Knights. But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.
So you would have 1 free det. Then whatever you ally, second knight det, ig det, whatever will cost cp. Don't expect every knight det to be free. Just the one that has warlord. And that means no ig/marine/whatever warlord
DarkHound wrote: But anyway, we finally arrived at my original point: they will probably have the Knight Lance rule refund your Warlord's detachment, but there may not be a reason to bring a Knight in a detachment of Armigers under the new system. Under that system, it would make sense to bring a trio of Armigers to maximize specific custom house traits, such as Hounds of War and Exacting Charge.
So you would have 1 free det. Then whatever you ally, second knight det, ig det, whatever will cost cp. Don't expect every knight det to be free. Just the one that has warlord. And that means no ig/marine/whatever warlord
My expectation is that every army is just going to eat the cost CP of extra detachments as payment for better/specialist detachment traits like you would for another Warlord trait or Relic. Just guestimating based on the revealed Battalion cost of 3 compared to 8th Battalions generating 5, I expect additional Vanguard/Spearhead/Super-heavy/whatever to cost 1 CP. A Patrol might cost 1 or 0. Would you pay 1 CP to make your melee Knights Krast and your shooting Knights Raven? Yeah, that's probably fair.
I think that breaks down if the cost is 2CP or more. It's probably worth 2 CP to merge two factions, but not to specialize house traits. I also think, with regards to merging factions, Knights will never be the Warlord's detachment. Most other factions need at least a Battalion's worth of Force Org slots, and you'd rather get that 3 CP refunded. But of course, it'll also depend on what they do with the Knight Lances rule.
All that being said, I think everybody is sleeping on Hounds of War. It might as well read: friendly units can fire into close combat and the Warglaives always fight first. I think that is enough to give Warglaives a serious role as counter-assault in either Knight or mixed armies. Since Imperial Knights are/are-allied-to predominantly shooting armies, Hounds of War gives those armies the opportunity to support the Warglaives while they continue to fight. Three Warglaives can screen a lot more of the board than a single Knight at the same cost. Hounds of War is also a huge movement/tactical benefit, since you don't have to re-charge the same unit. You can move 14", charge ~7", then fall back 14" further into enemy lines and charge another 7".
Except those gave least cp in 8th. As they have less tax and more good slots they are unlikely be cheap. Brigade is the likely 1 cp one. Vanquard etc i expect 4 minimum
Ah, I see what you mean. In that case, 3 or 4 CP for another detachment is going to be awful for army diversity. Everybody's going to be mono-faction with one Brigade, hoarding those CPs.
If there's no rule that the Warlord has to come from the largest detachment, I could still see souping, it'd just be inverted. You take your Warlord in your special detachment, and use a cheap Brigade (IG or AdMech) to fill bodies.
In any case, Knights are going to interact strangely with the new rules.
DarkHound wrote: Ah, I see what you mean. In that case, 3 or 4 CP for another detachment is going to be awful for army diversity. Everybody's going to be mono-faction with one Brigade, hoarding those CPs.
If there's no rule that the Warlord has to come from the largest detachment, I could still see souping, it'd just be inverted. You take your Warlord in your special detachment, and use a cheap Brigade (IG or AdMech) to fill bodies.
In any case, Knights are going to interact strangely with the new rules.
Except vanquard, spearhead etc don't refund. It's only patrol/bat/brigade. How dark eldar/knights work is still unclear.
And the cost has to be high enough it's actually genuine choice rather than automatic to get better unit rules. Mono faction(even within codex) should get some compensation for having inferior units. Why anybody would take battalion with lots of tax for 3CP if vanquard with less tax would be 1 or 2 CP?
edit: BTW one oddity if brigade is less than 3 CP you are better off warlord in battalion and non-refunded brigade.
Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more
Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.
So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.
How many CP a Superheavy Aux (Guessing at 1 as adding A KNIGHT apparently vosts 1or2 cp, assuming 1 SupAux and 1 Codex) is doesn't make much odds as Aux don't get house hould traits never have.
I just hope the lance rule requires your warlord to refund CP so we have less soup shenanigans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more
Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.
The issue is currently out side of codex PrimOPness soup and minmaxing is 100% upsides and anyone trying to play mono faction mono subfaction in a single detqchmeng gets the underpowered end of the stick twice.
The way the detachment system worked in 8th was not the way GW intended it to at all they already said that. You now get rewarded for fillinf your detachments beyond the bare minimum.
Ice_can wrote: So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.
Eh those don't really make sense when detachments COST CP. In 8th ed brigade gave you most because it had most tax. In same logic it can't now be most or nobody takes it except for free warlord if it costs most CP. You lose most CP AND have to take most tax? Assuming GW is even remotely interested in balance that doesn't work...
More tax, less CP cost.
For drukhari if they had to pay 2 CP per patrol...yeah right. Not happening. I expect either it to be set price(smaller than 3 patrol) for 3 or have all 3 patrol refund if warlord is from one.
Ice_can wrote: So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.
Eh those don't really make sense when detachments COST CP. In 8th ed brigade gave you most because it had most tax. In same logic it can't now be most or nobody takes it except for free warlord if it costs most CP. You lose most CP AND have to take most tax? Assuming GW is even remotely interested in balance that doesn't work...
More tax, less CP cost.
For drukhari if they had to pay 2 CP per patrol...yeah right. Not happening. I expect either it to be set price(smaller than 3 patrol) for 3 or have all 3 patrol refund if warlord is from one.
Well 3 patrols cost 4CP at 2CP per patrol as the warlords is free, raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols 3 patrols = 0CP cost.
You coming at this as units are a Tax GW doesn't believe thats really a thing outside of troops. Additionally a Brigade gives you a lot more slots to fill in 1 detachment and GW has stated you will want to put your warlord in the biggest detachment. Hence I suspect it's going to be 2, 3, 4 for the only detachments that refund CP. Battalion is supposed to be a rare level of ally a brigade is supposed to be the main force. Making it cost less CP would lead to wierd situations where a brigade of guard bring along a battalion of Marines/SoB and the battalion contains the warlod.
Oh true GW being GW wouldn't be surprise if they ignore balance and makes silly excuses like that.
I'm talking about POV of balance and give GW benefit of doubt that they care about it enough they do at least kindergarden level of balance to the game.
Ice_can wrote: So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.
How many CP a Superheavy Aux (Guessing at 1 as adding A KNIGHT apparently vosts 1or2 cp, assuming 1 SupAux and 1 Codex) is doesn't make much odds as Aux don't get house hould traits never have.
I just hope the lance rule requires your warlord to refund CP so we have less soup shenanigans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more
Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.
The issue is currently out side of codex PrimOPness soup and minmaxing is 100% upsides and anyone trying to play mono faction mono subfaction in a single detqchmeng gets the underpowered end of the stick twice.
The way the detachment system worked in 8th was not the way GW intended it to at all they already said that. You now get rewarded for fillinf your detachments beyond the bare minimum.
currently there are 4 downsides to soup
1) Tax units more factions means more detachments which requires a lot of mandatory units how many admech units really needed 3 enginseers and a dominous compared to the number that took them.
2) CP Requirement. Most factions excepting guard tended to have CP requirements to make function eg. Knights want warlord traits and relics Ba wants the same only with DS buffs etc etc. This meant that in practice most soup lists needed more CP to function which meant more tax units
3) Some factions have big penalties for even small souping SM doctrines and SoB sacred rites
4) a loss of synergy. Which is a big one. Admech are particularly vulnerable to this as one of the more common multi dogma factions. But lots of auras are coded to specific dogma/chapters and if you take multiples you cant buff/repair all units in your army. now yes auras are limited range anyway so yes you cant get all your army under the one aura and you can build/play round this. But it is still a significant downside.
So to say there are no downsides to souping is just BS.
It might be more advantageous net than not souping thus representing a choice but it certainly wasn't mandatory to compete evidenced by all those SM lists utilising doctrines. Ironically knights were probably the one list where it was mandatory, But it still is in ninth for the same reason you need some models to sit on objectives. The only difference in ninth is that the guard brigade is probably the only choice as it doesn't have the CP demands other allies.
Yes under the previous system you were often (but not always) disadvantaged if you brought a mono dogma/chapter in a mono detatchment for no strategic reason just as most armies are disadvantaged if all they take is flamers as special/heavy weapons. Your deliberately handicapping yourself and that's a choice that you don't have to make and even if you did you could still have the CP to functionaly run the list. I certainly had good performances with some mono brigade lists by choice. So both soup and mono could function.
The difference is ninth is looking like its not really a choice because on top of the 4 negatives to souping your now getting a huge CP reduction and one of the big negatives of soup armies is they need more CP to be efficient.
tneva82 wrote: Oh true GW being GW wouldn't be surprise if they ignore balance and makes silly excuses like that.
I'm talking about POV of balance and give GW benefit of doubt that they care about it enough they do at least kindergarden level of balance to the game.
Except I don't really see the above being super imbalanced anyway,
My mono Knights in 1 Superheavy single house hold get the full 12 CP and are happy
If you take the 32 you loose 3 CP or whatever the Super heavy detachment is in CP hopefully sufficiently enough that it's not a no brainer to do so 3CP if you put your warlord in either you still start 4CP if its 1CP per codex worse off which balances out the advantage of the increased unit choice and flexibility adding in CP cost for additional warlord trait and relic and you can claw it back to 0 CP but that's because regen trailts and relics are just super good when its minimum 70% chance of gain that CP per turn.
TLD playing mono Knights over the 32 will gain you less than a 1CP advantage that to me says it's not as the sky is falling as people make out if anything GW failed to move the neddle far enough to make sure allies have a cost of inclusion.
Mono knights + Guard brigade is fine 9 CP +1 per turn is sufficient
Mono Knights + a Non Guard Ally Is a different case because BA/SM/SoB/Admech (post enginewar) all want about 6CP pregame which is then in conflict with the CP your knights need
These then become substantially weaker choices than not souping
Tripple faction just compounds this to such an extent that its as poor a choice as taking a full brigade of choices but sticking it in a battalion in 7th - you just wont see it.
So is the sky falling in no - but is list building a lot more restrictive causeing a lot less variety in options absolutely
Ice_can wrote: So far from the mention of raiding party and lance rules being carried over to 9th (though unconfirmed if they will change or not) as I suspect it would be the codex lance rule not the later FAQ'd varions that would carry over.
As raiding party is +4CP for 3 patrols it's likely 2CP per patrol, 3 battalion and I would guess 4or 5 for brigade.
How many CP a Superheavy Aux (Guessing at 1 as adding A KNIGHT apparently vosts 1or2 cp, assuming 1 SupAux and 1 Codex) is doesn't make much odds as Aux don't get house hould traits never have.
I just hope the lance rule requires your warlord to refund CP so we have less soup shenanigans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: Nonsense making the cost so high doesnt make it a choice it makes it a huge penalty. Sure you can take 3 detatchments but then you'll have half the CP of everyone else and need more
Its a mechanism designed to force mono play as much as possible without actualy forceing mono play - of course it only works at 2000pts once you go bigger and have more CP to play with you get a choice again.
The issue is currently out side of codex PrimOPness soup and minmaxing is 100% upsides and anyone trying to play mono faction mono subfaction in a single detqchmeng gets the underpowered end of the stick twice.
The way the detachment system worked in 8th was not the way GW intended it to at all they already said that. You now get rewarded for fillinf your detachments beyond the bare minimum.
currently there are 4 downsides to soup
1) Tax units more factions means more detachments which requires a lot of mandatory units how many admech units really needed 3 enginseers and a dominous compared to the number that took them.
2) CP Requirement. Most factions excepting guard tended to have CP requirements to make function eg. Knights want warlord traits and relics Ba wants the same only with DS buffs etc etc. This meant that in practice most soup lists needed more CP to function which meant more tax units
3) Some factions have big penalties for even small souping SM doctrines and SoB sacred rites
4) a loss of synergy. Which is a big one. Admech are particularly vulnerable to this as one of the more common multi dogma factions. But lots of auras are coded to specific dogma/chapters and if you take multiples you cant buff/repair all units in your army. now yes auras are limited range anyway so yes you cant get all your army under the one aura and you can build/play round this. But it is still a significant downside.
So to say there are no downsides to souping is just BS.
It might be more advantageous net than not souping thus representing a choice but it certainly wasn't mandatory to compete evidenced by all those SM lists utilising doctrines. Ironically knights were probably the one list where it was mandatory, But it still is in ninth for the same reason you need some models to sit on objectives. The only difference in ninth is that the guard brigade is probably the only choice as it doesn't have the CP demands other allies.
Yes under the previous system you were often (but not always) disadvantaged if you brought a mono dogma/chapter in a mono detatchment for no strategic reason just as most armies are disadvantaged if all they take is flamers as special/heavy weapons. Your deliberately handicapping yourself and that's a choice that you don't have to make and even if you did you could still have the CP to functionaly run the list. I certainly had good performances with some mono brigade lists by choice. So both soup and mono could function.
The difference is ninth is looking like its not really a choice because on top of the 4 negatives to souping your now getting a huge CP reduction and one of the big negatives of soup armies is they need more CP to be efficient.
Yeah disaggree 100% on the Tax units especially in relation to Guard and Admech their troops are the very units you wanted.
Guard HQ's make the troops better so not a tax and admech HQ's could heal knights in theory, so still very minimal tax
2) No your saying spending more CP to supercharge more units ment you needed more CP, thats just pilling imbalance upon imbalance and making Soup even more oppresively must be used to have a functional army
3) oh yeah the last two codex's dropping less than a year out from 9th had bonuses for being mono codex really helped stop Add the 32 being the default answer to what is the best way to run Knights.
4) lack of synergy is wholey upon the player you could claim the same for taking flyers and it being hard to buff them with aura's yet.
So playing the game from one codex and being disadvantaged by the design of the detachment system means what? Just suck it up and by another army? Seriously you may aswell be arguing for their to be 5 factions of imperium, choas, Eldar, Nids , and haha not even real factions for necrons, Tau and Orks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
U02dah4 wrote: Mono knights + Guard brigade is fine 9 CP +1 per turn is sufficient
Mono Knights + a Non Guard Ally Is a different case because BA/SM/SoB/Admech (post enginewar) all want about 6CP pregame which is then in conflict with the CP your knights need
These then become substantially weaker choices than not souping
Tripple faction just compounds this to such an extent that its as poor a choice as taking a full brigade of choices but sticking it in a battalion in 7th - you just wont see it.
So is the sky falling in no - but is list building a lot more restrictive causeing a lot less variety in options absolutely
It's not restricted at all you can still bring your guard Admech etc you just can No longer have your cake and eat it, list building isnt more restrictive its more open you can minmax your units from multiple codex's or play with more restrictions on units but ofset by CP.
Look across the game as a whole in ninth and im betting that you see a lot less HQ and Troop choices. I'm not saying you want none but certainly players were taking more than they needed as taxes.
I certainly knew players taking 9-12 troop choices for CP im betting those players don't take 9 in 9th.
If your building your armies efficiently you supercharge them when there's an option to do so especially given GW propensity to take ability of datasheets and into strategems. (Admech were terrible for it). If i take my knights with relic and warlord traits and you play me with your knights but don't take them my knights are better. Sure you don't have to relic and warlord trait them but doing so your handicapping yourself vs players that do. and that process won't change in ninth.
I rarely ran my guard with my knights admech was my preferred fluffy option - more synergy now its not a viable option so add 32 is the only sensible option.
4) its not on the player. There is either synergy or there it isn't if my dominus can give rr1's to my whole army or my dominus can give rr1's to only a 3rd of my army it has less synergy. The first gives you a lot more flexibility and will result in situations where suboptimal units get a buff because they happen to be in a good location boardstate wise in comparison to the latter where my guardsmen might be in range of my dominus but get no buff. As I said you can deploy around it but it is definitely a negative.
Its not having your cake and eat it its functioning on an equal basis to other armies. now you have all the negatives of before plus an even bigger negative and your one plus is halved because as you say you can't turbo charge. Thats not a choice when you are competeing vs factions such as Tau and necrons that don't have that problem and in the case of necrons got massively buffed Sure you can techniquely take your knights and not relic or wl trait them or your admech and not utilise them properly but your gonna autolose. So most players just won't its an illusion of choice
Those rules aren't nearly the same as what Knights have. Now other tanks can shoot into close combat at -1 BS. They will still be unable to fire if they fall back. That means you have to choose between shooting (badly) with the tank or shooting into the assault with the rest of the army.
Knights get to freely fall back, ignoring wrap arounds, to shoot at full BS to any target, then choose to charge back or not. They can eat a charge and just walk away while the rest of the army shoots the enemy.
Like I said earlier, this rules change doesn't invalidate the value of Super Heavy Walker or Hounds of War.
DarkHound wrote: Those rules aren't nearly the same as what Knights have. Now other tanks can shoot into close combat at -1 BS. They will still be unable to fire if they fall back. That means you have to choose between shooting (badly) with the tank or shooting into the assault with the rest of the army.
Knights get to freely fall back, ignoring wrap arounds, to shoot at full BS to any target, then choose to charge back or not. They can eat a charge and just walk away while the rest of the army shoots the enemy.
Like I said earlier, this rules change doesn't invalidate the value of Super Heavy Walker or Hounds of War.
Who said they were the same?
We still pay a lot more points than comparable or better weapons in part because of rules that have just been handed out game wide.
1 The premium points costs should be getting reduced now.
2 Superheavy walker etc will need heavy errata to make sence with these new rules.
Between the codex and Engine war we are going to need a lot of errata for a number of rules to interact properly with the new edition.
My enthusiasm is a little dented. I’ve got a lot of questions about the viability of knights in 9th so far.
Probably that I’m being a bit pessimistic and good things are to come.
That’s possible right?
Given they have said weapons with Blast will see significant points increases to reflect their improved performance.
RFBC is already over priced thank you GW.
Thermal Cannons and Ironstorm pods will also likely be blasts too and arn't exactly steller for their points either.
Knights can't benifit from their new terrain rules.
Simply put if they see any points increases I'm highly doubtful it's going to change much from 8th edition. You'll struggle to hit a 50% win ratio.
Armiger spam on the other hand does look more and more like the way to go.
Guess I'm ordering more moriax once FW starts up again.
It depends in what format knights as a skew list in team formats such as WTC will still be big.
Knights in solo lists will still struggle with the problem that as a skew list there are lists we deal with well but there are also lists that we deal with badly.
I like using knights in competitive games/taking them to a tournament. I usually bring guard and Admech allies. My current list does ok apart from tau/GSC/ultra top marine stuff like ravenguard centurions
I’m not feeling so confident going into 9th.
Really hoping we have a good rule or bit of info coming to keep us encouraged
I looked at the FAQ's and couldn't find an exact answer. If I have a Knight and AdMech Mars detachment how would the Knight of the Cog trait interact with their double canticles?
It seems to me that a Crusader with RFBC and Icarus Autocannon would benefit greatly from the +1 Str canticle. Str 8 Autocannon, Str 9 RFBC, Str 5 Heavy Stubbers... throw on Headsman's Mark to clear out some of these new vehicle-heavy lists!
In 9th edition that's a big unknown at the moment as exsisting codex's will be getting new FAQ/Errata dropping with the edition change.
Allies will cost CP in 8th thats confirmed the amount of CP is TBD. Not to mention Knights seem to have had the cover rules designed to exclude them and with all the new Admech stuff I suspect you may be better served with admech units instead.
bmsattler wrote: Knights are part of the AdMech codex, so they should have an option to use them regardless. Its fun to theory-craft at least.
Except if that's the datasheet your using I wouldn't expect you to be able to have acess to any of the Knight codex strategums etc.
If you are trying to get acess to the strategums, house holds, aligence traits etc, I would expect that to cost CP as your adding a second codex.
bmsattler wrote: I looked at the FAQ's and couldn't find an exact answer. If I have a Knight and AdMech Mars detachment how would the Knight of the Cog trait interact with their double canticles?
It seems to me that a Crusader with RFBC and Icarus Autocannon would benefit greatly from the +1 Str canticle. Str 8 Autocannon, Str 9 RFBC, Str 5 Heavy Stubbers... throw on Headsman's Mark to clear out some of these new vehicle-heavy lists!
The AdMech army rolls one canticle, then Mars rolls for a second. This is important for the re-roll canticle Warlord trait: you have to roll the global one first and can choose to re-roll that, then you roll the Mars specific one and can't re-roll it. If you use Knight of the Cog, it only applies the first canticle since Knights can't gain the Mars keyword. That being said, Cawl can still add or subtract one to the global canticle roll, which applies to the Knight.
If you take a Knight from the AdMech codex, it doesn't have access to any of the Knight codex relics, warlord traits, or stratagems. The only reason to bother is ITC lets you take one Knight and still call yourself pure AdMech for faction ranking points. There's no in-game mechanical advantage to taking the Knight from the AdMech book instead of from the Knight codex. In 9th, it's very unlikely that there will be an additional CP cost if the detachment is from another codex, beyond the cost of the detachment itself.
bmsattler wrote: I looked at the FAQ's and couldn't find an exact answer. If I have a Knight and AdMech Mars detachment how would the Knight of the Cog trait interact with their double canticles?
It seems to me that a Crusader with RFBC and Icarus Autocannon would benefit greatly from the +1 Str canticle. Str 8 Autocannon, Str 9 RFBC, Str 5 Heavy Stubbers... throw on Headsman's Mark to clear out some of these new vehicle-heavy lists!
The AdMech army rolls one canticle, then Mars rolls for a second. This is important for the re-roll canticle Warlord trait: you have to roll the global one first and can choose to re-roll that, then you roll the Mars specific one and can't re-roll it. If you use Knight of the Cog, it only applies the first canticle since Knights can't gain the Mars keyword. That being said, Cawl can still add or subtract one to the global canticle roll, which applies to the Knight.
If you take a Knight from the AdMech codex, it doesn't have access to any of the Knight codex relics, warlord traits, or stratagems. The only reason to bother is ITC lets you take one Knight and still call yourself pure AdMech for faction ranking points. There's no in-game mechanical advantage to taking the Knight from the AdMech book instead of from the Knight codex. In 9th, it's very unlikely that there will be an additional CP cost if the detachment is from another codex, beyond the cost of the detachment itself.
Except multiple time it's been eluded to, also that would lead to odd situations where Guard taking a Banblade costs the same CP as adding an Imperial Knight.
I genuinely believe that the detachment will cost CP and the codex will cost CP . Would also explain why Stu implied the CP cost of adding a Single knight depended on your main faction.
But I'll admit I have a bais in this as I'm fed up of GW nerfing Codex Imperial Knights for rules interactions caused by IG and Admech allies.
I’m a Taranis player and would love to be able to play codex imperial knights.
The reason I soup and have done is due to the following
1. Nearly everyone souped from day 1 and as a result we got slammed with stratagem points hikes. I remember trying mono dex around this time and found it impossible once strats like Our darkest hour. Order of companions, the missile strat(who’s name escapes me just now) all got bumped up. We just don’t have the CP to function as an army - this looks to be addressed in 9th hopefully
2. No screen and knights fold like paper (except for sanctuary and armour of the sainted ion. And even then they go down to rocksaws, centurions, sang guard etc. Let alone anyone with ranged AT
3. Low model count and the auto lose on objectives.
We seemed priced higher than we should be in my eyes. Our units aren’t actually that survivable and the damage output isn’t competitive to what quite a few other armies can do. I know that’s probably controversial but what armies these days aren’t stacking enough anti tank to make William Tecumseh Sherman weep.
I’m not entirely convinced we’ve got a rosey future in the next edition but I’m trying to stay positive and hope
Any tricks you’ve got for making 1 faction knights work?
3 Ironstom pods I've tried moving them around as it depends if your likely to face flyer spam or not.
Really though you have to except your loosing 1 knight turn 1 every game, sometimes it's two and you normally loose those games.
Raven guard Centurions and Blood angles are horrible match ups but you just have to choose knights you can lose and position as best you can.
GSC I don't have any real experience against, I think you just go as hard as you can and hopefully put enough damage down to be able to limp across the line.
Yeah the weapons are painfully overcosted whoever priced a RFBC obviously never looked at the IG codex, they are also all over the place when you look at the choas knights Codex aswell.
Esentially to have a representative damage output you need to be making shooting and CC work.
You
On an unrelated note, I just realized the implications of the new blast rules for the Preceptor: the low-intensity shot is an Avenger Gatling Cannon against hordes at a 20pt discount. The blast rules are going to apply to (most) ranged, non-flamer, random shot weapons. This would do a bunch of weird stuff to the balance of the weapons. The Avenger is still best against units of 10 or less, but the Battlecannon becomes top of the heap against hordes (although significantly more expensive). Of course, the Battlecannon is still god-awful against tanks. The Las-impulsor will have to come up in points since it also hits vehicles almost as hard as the Thermal Cannon.
Actually, let me do the math:
vs hordes: Battlecannon (6.7) >= Las = Avenger (T3 6.7 or T4 5.4) > Thermal (3.3)
vs MEQ: Avenger (3.6) > Battlecannon (2.6) > Las (2.1) > Thermal (1.9)
vs T8 3+: Thermal (7.1 at 18" or 5.5 at 36" ) > Las (5.5) > Battlecannon = Avenger (3.5)
Man, even with the blast rules the Battlecannon is incredible garbage. It is mostly equal to the Avenger, so you're paying 25 points for an overkill of extra range. Looking at this spread, the weapons all seem pretty balanced with each other. It would make sense for the point discrepancy between them to shrink. The Avenger and the Thermal should probably be the cheapest, since they're the most specialized. The Las-impulsor and Battlecannon should pay a small cost for versatility and range respectively, though it should be small since both are rarely the best.
I’m a Taranis player and would love to be able to play codex imperial knights.
The reason I soup and have done is due to the following
1. Nearly everyone souped from day 1 and as a result we got slammed with stratagem points hikes. I remember trying mono dex around this time and found it impossible once strats like Our darkest hour. Order of companions, the missile strat(who’s name escapes me just now) all got bumped up. We just don’t have the CP to function as an army - this looks to be addressed in 9th hopefully
2. No screen and knights fold like paper (except for sanctuary and armour of the sainted ion. And even then they go down to rocksaws, centurions, sang guard etc. Let alone anyone with ranged AT
3. Low model count and the auto lose on objectives.
We seemed priced higher than we should be in my eyes. Our units aren’t actually that survivable and the damage output isn’t competitive to what quite a few other armies can do. I know that’s probably controversial but what armies these days aren’t stacking enough anti tank to make William Tecumseh Sherman weep.
I’m not entirely convinced we’ve got a rosey future in the next edition but I’m trying to stay positive and hope
Any tricks you’ve got for making 1 faction knights work?
points 2 and 3 still stand so point 1 will carry over to the new edition althought unless theres preferencial treatment to admech guard will be your only ally as creed gives a CP rebate
As to tricks play mono knights the best tactic is remove the word mono. The only exception is if you are playing team formats like the ETC where skew lists are part of the format and then I would build a list focussed on crusaders with thermal cannons and hope your captain matchs you with a vehicle heavy list. In a solo event there isnt an easy way to ignore objectives and the ability to screen and win.
Things may change in ninth but the rules arnt all out yet.
I'm not going to say your not pretty much on the money from a game play perspective, however Knight's might gain on the objectives game if the detachment changes and the lack of hordes mean your less likely to be competing for ovjectives against 30 ork boys or 20 Guard.
Oh holding an objective with a impulse or some bikers are you move shoot, charge kill and mine now.
The secondary being tailerable and a few other changes do mean your not quite as behind on the score card as 8th missions also GW seems to have learned that HQ only or FS only scoring objectives wad a terrible game design space to enter.
U02dah4 wrote: I was debating buying a castigator. With the detatchment rules just spoiled I will not. 6CP just isn't viable
They also say you can get it refunded. I suspect the knightly rule allowing you to make one a CHARACTER will let you get CP refunds for your warlord's detachment in the same way as a normal battalion.
That was the most useless faction focus artical yet.
Super heavy detachements cost 3 cp aslong as it doesnt include titanic units but 6 if it includes 1 or more?
Hopefully they don't duck it up and make the Knight lance rule apply to allies aswell, this time.
Also what's this nonsense about when your in engagement range you can use your Traitors Pyre.
I really hope we aren't loosing falling back or the army will be seriously mono build.
P.S. just looked up the sally forth strategum in the codex and for 3CP you can outflank 1 Questor Imperialus questorus Knight or 1 unit of armigers for 3CP, now assuming powerlevel doesnt change both alligences can do it for 1CP per Armiger and 3 per Questorus, potentially less CP than that strategum without having to be Imperial alligence. well done GW.
Well chaos knights artical confirms Ironstorm pods are blast weapons as well as thermal spears. That does mean that so far knights are not shooting into combat with 90% of their weapons, unless they get a rule to do so.
But your warlord gives you 3CP if Armiger and 6CP if Titanic.
Mono knights seem viable in 9th but I suspect patrol detachment of allies for 2CP isnt going to be uncommon.
A supporting detachment is always worth a look for skirmish screens, objective holders, smash characters, psychic protection,
Whatever , but now you'll only want it if you actually WANT those units, not just as a command point battery to fuel lightly strategems....
Yup, that was my revision. Cut one tank out of my AdMech to bring it down to a Patrol (which I probably would have to do anyway with the point increases) and make my Knight the Warlord. It costs 2 CP for the patrol and 2 CP for AdMech Warlord traits. Assuming a roughly 15% point increase, my 1500 list gains an extra 3 CP over the course of the game. Beyond that, I'd probably pay 1 more CP to make it a Battalion to bring third tank and more infantry (in addition to more Armigers).
That's about how I expect the meta to shake out in general. A single Knight is going to need a Warlord trait and/or Relic, so end up 4 or 5 CP. Additional detachments in general will probably be 2 CP patrols with 2 or 3 CP of pre-game Stratagems, so it's actually a pretty even trade. Of course, now anything more than a single Knight will demand the Knights be the main detachment. Armigers look really good for filling required slots.
I hear certain people saying that, but I don't know why GW would. I find it very unlikely it'll actually happen. As it stands, Chaos and Tyranids have to take allies from technically different books. Ynnari also rely on other codexes. It would cripple those factions, and for what? At this point, taking any additional detachments is a huge commitment. Nobody's going to splash token fragments of other factions to cherry-pick the best individual units because the sum will end up starved for command points.
A patrol costs 2cp - that's hardly crippling is it? I think the numbers have wiggle room for a further tax, consdering a Knight SHD backed up by a BA patrol will give you 10+5cp without an explicit soup tax.
Ice_can wrote: Well chaos knights artical confirms Ironstorm pods are blast weapons as well as thermal spears. That does mean that so far knights are not shooting into combat with 90% of their weapons, unless they get a rule to do so.
But your warlord gives you 3CP if Armiger and 6CP if Titanic.
Mono knights seem viable in 9th but I suspect patrol detachment of allies for 2CP isnt going to be uncommon.
Well knights can step out of combat, shoot and charge again. Another benefit is that you get to strike first due to charging as non chargers it's the player whose turn it isn't that starts.
Except Armiger's can't do that, the big lads can though they need to be careful about getring wrapped as they can only use their fallback rules against Infantry and swarms.
Though I'm just hoping GW dont up the cost of a RFBC egen more because it's a blast weapon it's already rediculously over costed.
Not shure how much wiggle room thwre is for a lot of Knight's to see any points increases as they die stupid quick when you take multiple.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
grouchoben wrote: A patrol costs 2cp - that's hardly crippling is it? I think the numbers have wiggle room for a further tax, consdering a Knight SHD backed up by a BA patrol will give you 10+5cp without an explicit soup tax.
I did wonder if the community article has maybe been written/edited by the PR team and they have made another mistake.
A Super heavy Aux at 1 or 2CP wuuld be more inline with Stu's statements and would be consistent with additional codex costong 1 or 2CP.
Much more feasible to add a LoW from your own codex that way but makes going hard into multi LoW less likely.
Well loose 2 titanic models and your opponent gets 15 VP for it, 1 titanic gives up 10
Also arimgers are 3VP for each one killed and insult to injury.
None of the secondarys look particularly helpful for knights to be able to score easily.
yeah not an edition balanced around elite infantry to the exclusion of balance for everyone else.
Those secondaries are more than fair. You can't choose to get both 3VPs from Armigers and VPs from Titans, since they're the same category. An opponent also can't score the max 15 unless you bring 5 Armigers, so they probably won't.
Knights are perfectly suited to the Attrition secondary, scoring 4 VPs for each round they killed more units than they lost. That's almost automatically 15pts.
Likewise, Engage on All fronts is easy to pick up since Knights have great range and can afford to spread out. Alternatively, Linebreaker is an option, especially with a lot of Warglaives.
Lastly you can pick a Purge the Enemy secondary that suits your opponent's list. If they have 5 vehicles, you take Bring It Down and get an easy 15pts. Or else if they have more than 2 characters, then you take Assassinate. Of course, Slay the Warlord is less than ideal, but do-able failing any other option.
Knights can very easily score 40+ VPs on generic secondaries, and we haven't even gotten the Knight-specific secondaries yet. Most other kinds of armies are going to struggle to secure the maximum points from secondaries. I'd say Knights have a huge advantage, maybe even enough to ignore the primary objective until it's convenient.
Pure knights are giving away that 15 either way be it titanic or armigers.
Compairing that against a lot of the Marine lists that were prevalent at the start of the year your struggling to get more than 10VP's alot of the time bar the 1 that I expect to loose due to the detachment changes which was assasinate and that would have been a risky pick.
Unfortunately I doubt we will see a new codex untill atleast a year into this edition which is where the faction specific rules will be and untill then I suspect it might not actually be easier to play mono knights in 9th than it was in 8th. but onwards for honor and glory.
Sure, they get Titan Slayers for free, but you get Attrition for free in return. I think you're focused way too hard on killing and trying to get value out of Purge the Enemy. I honestly don't think I'd pick any Purge the Enemy over the mission-specific secondaries unless I was up against a skew list.
Looking at the missions, you'll need to include more Armigers to control more of the board. I also think 9th's focus on objective and board control raises the value of Banner of Macharius Triumphant and the Freeblade trait Sworn to a Quest. Especially using a Freeblade Armiger to sneak on to backfield objectives.
Now, obviously holding objectives is the Knights' weakness. Instead of despairing that you can't get awarded for killing, you should focus on how you can score.
Most mission-specific secondaries reward encircling the enemy and going to their deployment zone. Use that as an opportunity to kill their backfield anti-tank, and temporarily concede the main objectives. You focus on picking up the minimum 5 points and keep them from getting 15 for the first couple turns. Once you've cleared the backfield and scored your secondaries, you can cleanse and contest each main objective. You don't need to be winning every turn for the entire game, you just need to have scored more points after turn 5.
I was leaning to wards armiger spam anyway thanks to the janky terrain rules.
However they look look like they will probably need the custom household for falbavk and shoot or charge, need to test that.
I suspect taking 1 Questorus or above is unfortunately going to be the best way to play short term unless the points take a massive swing in their favour.
Also depends on the new FW rules, my Atropos, Styrix and Lancer would like to be playable.
I just finished up my Terryn force in time for the new edition. Normally when I paint the same thing for a while I get bored of it, but I found painting the knights to be pure joy. Right now I have two warglaives and two magnetized questoris. Ideally I can run it as pure knights and grab a few more armigers and maybe a valiant, but if it doesn't go that way I can always ally in something. I was thinking about potentially a small dark angels force to sit back on objectives while the knights push up.
Ideasweasel wrote: Reece from frontline told me knight players have plenty to look forward to in 9th edition.
Maybe he meant enjoying the money that you make eBaying the models
Unfortunately I often find Reexe's idea of "Knight's" to actually be some form of Admech or Guard Soup with 1 or 3 knight's added to give it substance.
It's like asking how the chicken is today and beung told the chicken soup is lovely.
If I wanted chicken soup I'd have asked for chicken soup damn it ;P
"Some guys on Youtube said it's bad, we should probably sell our models."
Can we maybe talk about why, and what we could actually do about it? At this point all the rules have been revealed/leaked except the points changes. There's just not that much different than 8th edition. The worst thing I see is that Knights are disadvantaged against obscuring terrain, but that's reasonably fair when the Knight can see over virtually any other kind of terrain. Otherwise I think secondary objectives actually help mitigate the Knights' weakness at holding objectives.
DarkHound wrote: "Some guys on Youtube said it's bad, we should probably sell our models."
Can we maybe talk about why, and what we could actually do about it? At this point all the rules have been revealed/leaked except the points changes. There's just not that much different than 8th edition. The worst thing I see is that Knights are disadvantaged against obscuring terrain, but that's reasonably fair when the Knight can see over virtually any other kind of terrain. Otherwise I think secondary objectives actually help mitigate the Knights' weakness at holding objectives.
My Knights arn't going anywhere but apparently the TLD as they where doing a Live Q&A session so not massive detail they are trying to husstle alot of this out about a week plus ahead of schedule now.
The is me
Primary missions are very challenging to do well in as you need to spread out and hold alot of points on the board. Obsec on tough models is a big thing in winning "cough" Primaris do this well "cough"
Knights are so expensive you really need to be maximising both shooting and CC for damage output
Alot of the secondarys are based to holding ground or performing actions.
So far all the actions require you to have infantry, swarm keyword, Knights dont have that, so we are back to playing the stand in certain locations game
With tanks becoming more viable expect people to be teching into vehical killing as the meta goes vehical heavy for the first 3-6 months
The killing secondarys apparently never give maximum points for like 90% of lists sounds like this is by design.
Honestly as Knight player I'm used to be at disadvantage. When I started playing Knight by the end of 7th and during the beginning of 8th, any game was an uphill battle... At least until we had our moment of glory (even if, in my opinion, it was due to Castellan and when you play against someone without a codex: our own codex was alwasy average at best... maybe difficult to manage and to face for a newbie, but never top tier competitive).
In my opinion Knight has always been almost a weird TAC list: if your enemy shoot you engage in melee, if it's strong in melee you shoot and so on so forth.
That said: I think that there are glimmer of hope for 9th edition... but not because we are in a good shape: quite the opposite.If the point increase are accurate, we can field 3 Knight or 4 if we go solo under 2000 point.
I think Knight will be even less competitive, and they will slowly fade away from any competitive scenario and netlists even as a single model due to Detachment system.
Once this happen, we will be able to come back to the table in a different state: people won't be able to tailor relic and warlord trait before the game; the shorter table help us a little to leverage our use of any phase of the game, to limit to stack modifier avoid wombo-combo to which we are particularly susceptible and the amount of CP should allow us to keep reserves and avoid alpha strike... and last but not least I'm not yet sure primary and secondary really disadvantage us.
Also, I'll probably be able to switch from Terryn to another Imperial Household because the Thunder of Voltoris isn't anymore the only battlecannon that made sense. And I can guarantee you that the Banner of Macharius and Sworn to a Quest for a Freeblade make wonder for your objective game if you gave them to the less threatening Knights in your Household.
I suspect next 2-5 months to be really grim... but there is light at the end of the tunnel.
Competitive 40k games already have had people
Stacking a ridiculous amount of AT for years.
So much so that bye bye, I lose knights a turn almost every turn. This was in a time where as Ice mentions above vehicles were ok.
Now that vehicles have got a load of buffs inbound and weaknesses like tagging and the addition of blast....it’s not unexpected to assume that bringing a metric ton of AT is still a good tactic
That bodes badly for knights. I actually think knights offensive power is massively overrated. The same if not more so for their survivability
Competitive 40k games already have had people
Stacking a ridiculous amount of AT for years.
So much so that bye bye, I lose knights a turn almost every turn. This was in a time where as Ice mentions above vehicles were ok.
Now that vehicles have got a load of buffs inbound and weaknesses like tagging and the addition of blast....it’s not unexpected to assume that bringing a metric ton of AT is still a good tactic
That bodes badly for knights. I actually think knights offensive power is massively overrated. The same if not more so for their survivability
I agree with you, but at the same time I think the AT will focus (as it is now) on mid strength weapons... or, at least, that's my hope. 90% of our resilience is already in the T8 anyway.
Also, I think that due to the performing actions to be made to score and the secondaries infantry will be (or will become) king rather than vehicles.... but we'll see.
Maybe the Detachment system will help a little? We can have our 3 Knight plus a Patrol of something else with very little loss of CP... I'm more worried for the warlord traits and relics CP cost in the new environment.
BTW: playing as Imperial rather than Mechanicus Knight it's not unusual to lose around 25-35 wound any turn... and I'm not talking about top tier list, but average casual list with a bunch of anti AT because they know they will be facing Knight.
A very good point and part of why the ‘anything can wound anything’ system is not perfect
People can just spam high volume mid strength weaponry and it does it all.
Further highlights how fragile knights are. I’m hoping there are some nice changes to keep things viable. Still not convinced a patrol is going to fit everything I need in. Points, CP cost, and restrictions of unit types
Modifiers buff knights - e.g. repentia are S7 now vs S8 before dragoons tripple hit on 5+ not 4+ both were commonly taken threats before while stacked -1s have gone which is also a big buff for us vs armies like eldar flyers while not effecting us much
Terrain buffs armigers but weakens long range knights however its still board dependent and large opaque terrain doesnt behave much differently - its not like you 50% obscured knights without large opaque terrain before
Engine war has buffed knights extra Strats WL Oaths and canticles if twinned with admech
Blast weapons buffed knights some of our weapons are stronger but reverse is not true against us
5" verticle engagement lets knights hit second floor ruins
5" verticle objective holding also lets knight hold objectives on a first floor when previously they might not have been able to
As to building outside of ETC team style where you want skew knights always took soup allies to do missions that hasn't changed. Much as some people were of the oppinion that the 32 etc where only taken for CP that was never entirely true you took them for Obectives.
Subject to points there are a lot of buffs built into the core rules. - personally im considering an imperial castigator 2 moiraxs claw/grav acompanied by an admech patrol 15" move + charge+1" on the smaller board has me CC them turn 1. And then what difference does the obscuring terrain make
As to vehicles being better so players will take more high S weaponry - the counter is that based on that logic a fair few people are ignoring vehicles entirely in favour of MSU hordes so the opposite may be true but thats about local meta which is to hard to predict pre pts
Something else to look at is an Inquisitor and/or Assassin. Having a Cullexus just forward of a Knight line can protect against smite-spam type armies and they can use a strat to make a charging enemy fight last.
An Inquisitor is a cheap psyker to score some of the new psychic secondaries, camp objectives, and deny the witch. An Ordo Xenos Inquisitor can also bring along a squad of Acolytes and make the entire group untargetable with a psychic power. Good for camping objectives and providing a source of firepower if needed.
I really hope that they FAQ our Objective Secured abilities to work like the Chaos Knights where we'll count as 10 models instead of 1. I think that would help balance some of the glaring problems that Knights will have with holding objectives.
Technically we have a relic that makes us count as 10 models.
Unfortunately it seems like GW just made that a base rule for Choas Knights.
To be honest I am hoping that we see some help in the FAQ however unfortunately the playtesters have been making such a crapshoot of Codex Imperial Knight's.
not Codex Soup yhe FLG guys saying ymoh your running a Knights list, oh but I only have 2 knights in my Knights List. WTAF?
How can you be testing how knights work as a codex at that point.
I’m hoping I can do a spearhead of 2 fully payload basilisks and a Wyvern and still have 3 knights. Maybe not 3 crusaders but I could make that work.
Might not be terribly competitive but it means if I run into a load of tanks abusing the obscuring terrain situation(why 18w why) then at least I have a fighting chance
I've seen several 9th edition battle reports for pure Knights on Youtube now, and it's really reinforced my view that you need Armigers for board control. The Knights haven't been doing badly by any stretch, and obscuring terrain hasn't left them wanting for targets. I think that Helverins are especially important for holding backfield objectives. Armigers also become the weak link for scoring Attrition, so Helverins are easier to keep out of danger.
The fact of the matter is that 3 or 4 Knight is too few to score primaries reliably, especially as you take casualties. I wouldn't take less than 6 models, however you want to divvy that up. You need to be able to leave models on objectives without feeling like you're missing firepower, or that you have to give up scoring objectives to fight the enemy.
I've also noticed that Flanking Maneuver is way more powerful now that lots of scoring comes from board control. I'd use it on Armigers, especially Warglaives (which can still shoot), to spring on to table quarters for Engage on All Fronts or mission specific secondaries. You probably still lose too much shooting to use it on a Knight unless you're House Raven, but it's something to consider.
Likewise, I think reserving full Knights is both too expensive and wastes too much firepower, but reserving Armigers protects them while you're scoring Attrition, and lets them arrive in table quarters from turn 2 onward.
So to cut a long story short, Looking for advice on a small list.
Spoiler:
I was starting a custodes army but my FLGS had a buy one get one free going on the WH section (due to COVID i assume, never been any kind of discount in all the time ive been alive), So as you would assume the shelves had been stripped pretty bare....
So i picked up the custodes codex and a free IK codex, been a horde/ork player forever and decided it was time to play something a bit more elite. As im a returning player I was aiming low model count, both to keep my painting spirits up and so that it was a little cheaper on the ol' wallet.
And.... annoyingly.... as the shelves were so bare.... i ended up reverting to my old trick of making everything some sort of Ork conversion! So i can make anything from the IK dex really. Theme? Da Grot Empara in his Grotbot!! and his trio of Grotstode Kaptins!
My thoughts are:
2-3x Custodes captains on Jetbikes, which i think from looking at the pts brings it around >200 Pts per Captain.
Then I wanted to bring some IK's in some format, I think I just about understand the detachments so I was thinking either;
Single Knight (for the no CP) Aux detachment - Shooty variant of Crusader or Castellan Or
Take the 3x LoW - Crusader/Castellan and 2x helverins (for the 3CP)
Then backfill with Custodes or other allies as needed to reach whatever points im playing (most likely 1k -1.5k).
My questions:
The Castellan seems not that far off in terms of points considering its little brother pays for its main guns and it doesnt, is it worth sinking the extra points and taking the Castellan? I am assuming that with my 2 custodes on bikes any melee focused units are gona be going straight for it?
If I opt for the 3xLoW detachment, Helverins for support or warglaives? I like the idea of helverins, as ive never had an army thats good at shooting (orksorksorksorks!), so i like the idea of raining down fire upon those who dare my wrath! but are they in the same issue with being the target of the melee/DS/flankers?
I assume its best to keep the custodes bike captain as the warlord? I think making the 1 knight on the board my warlord is probably a pretty big "HI AIM ALL YOUR STUFF THIS WAY!" right?
Any advice appreciated so I can workout how much dakkadakka is appropriate. Dont need anything super detailed, but really is the castellan good by its own? or will it have to be baby sat?
I suspect part of the reason might also be we are 3 weeks away from changing from 8th edition to 9th edition.
The core rukes have changed and GW have put ghe Battle primer style update on the website for free.
The full rulebook and a new CA2020 with updated points values for wcery unit in the game are due to release about the same time.
Right now without the point cost changes no-one is really able to give you certainty in any advice they give you.
Eight now it's all a case of we need to know how many points will certain models and weapons be, to be able to even begin to say what will or won't be good in 9th
Unfortunately it's looking like 9th may favour armigers over questorus class knights but without points this js guesswork/theory based on the leaks abd information we have so far.
Ice_can wrote: I suspect part of the reason might also be we are 3 weeks away from changing from 8th edition to 9th edition.
The core rukes have changed and GW have put ghe Battle primer style update on the website for free.
The full rulebook and a new CA2020 with updated points values for wcery unit in the game are due to release about the same time.
Right now without the point cost changes no-one is really able to give you certainty in any advice they give you.
Eight now it's all a case of we need to know how many points will certain models and weapons be, to be able to even begin to say what will or won't be good in 9th
Unfortunately it's looking like 9th may favour armigers over questorus class knights but without points this js guesswork/theory based on the leaks abd information we have so far.
Thanks for the update! Yeh it was one of those days where i woke up in a WH mood and popped on my bike to get me some plastic! So i had no idea 9E was closing in! I promised myself id play in 8E.... bought the rule book and all..... and never got there! I think then for now i'll go with the Crusader and 3x helverins. I can make some cool conversions for the helverins and they have set weapons and like you said, i think its likely they will want to keep them viable, they didnt move away from the big guys just for gaks and giggles (thought you never know with GW). Then the crusader can always just have more dakka strapped to it when i want! to the chopshop! the Mek owes me a favour or two
Ice_can wrote: I suspect part of the reason might also be we are 3 weeks away from changing from 8th edition to 9th edition.
The core rukes have changed and GW have put ghe Battle primer style update on the website for free.
The full rulebook and a new CA2020 with updated points values for wcery unit in the game are due to release about the same time.
Right now without the point cost changes no-one is really able to give you certainty in any advice they give you.
Eight now it's all a case of we need to know how many points will certain models and weapons be, to be able to even begin to say what will or won't be good in 9th
Unfortunately it's looking like 9th may favour armigers over questorus class knights but without points this js guesswork/theory based on the leaks abd information we have so far.
And i would disagree with that assessment questoris / Castigator with soup allies would be my guess based on the released information so far. Knights want to be in the enemys face ASAP - your ally of choice will do the objective holding better because they have the infantry keyword
You realise that if you dont go first that allies Knights is just gone before the end of turn 1.
Plenty of Lists still have ample firepower to alpha 1 knight off the table. And questorus and up can never get cover even behind a solid wall if it has the obscuring keyword.
Arimgers can use obscuring terrain and are a lot cheaper to reserve.
Also The castigator is about to see its rules and points likely upended as the Main studio FW books are apparently finally due to be released in August.
Admech are my ally of choice so if i dont get t1 my main knight gets cover from cantical. So cover plus armour of the sacred ion + taranis makes you pretty resiliant and we should be facing 15% less firepower than 8th and if you dont kill them they act as undamaged.
Yes the destroyed questoris T1 going second it tough but ive seen many armies fail to do so in 8th and if you play knights you have to accept it will happen some games. Theres no reason to think it will happen anymore frequently than it does now.l and a lot to think it will happen less.
As to allies they dont vanish T1 if you use terrain correctly they didnt in 8th they wont in ninth.
We could never hide our questoris before or get 50% obscured on most tourney tables.
Armiger suffer from being weaker with lower T point for point and without the relic warlord trait upgrades of their larger brethren.
Warglaives are still mediochre in combat put are passable as a half knight.
Helverins still suffer from the guns being ok vs some armies but useless vs others (and do nothing in CC) not terrible to have on an objective but theirs a reason you hardly see them.
As to Moiraxs they are a valid consideration twin laslocks, twin graviton or one and a claw however mostly claw are going straight at the enemy.
Sure you can technically oscure the shootimg armigers but they are tall enough that on lots of boards it wont happen and with the smaller board many armys will shoot the length even if you can obscure a couple they will just slaughter the third or 4h
By the castigator logic any model could be faq'd and be upended - they could also improve - based on current known rules the castigator is solid (as a one) but its immunity to the extra relic warlord trait strat makes it a 1. It is in quite a balanced place.
U02dah4 wrote: Admech are my ally of choice so if i dont get t1 my main knight gets cover from cantical. So cover plus armour of the sacred ion + taranis makes you pretty resiliant and we should be facing 15% less firepower than 8th and if you dont kill them they act as undamaged.
Yes the destroyed questoris T1 going second it tough but ive seen many armies fail to do so in 8th and if you play knights you have to accept it will happen some games. Theres no reason to think it will happen anymore frequently than it does now.l and a lot to think it will happen less.
As to allies they dont vanish T1 if you use terrain correctly they didnt in 8th they wont in ninth.
We could never hide our questoris before or get 50% obscured on most tourney tables.
Armiger suffer from being weaker with lower T point for point and without the relic warlord trait upgrades of their larger brethren.
Warglaives are still mediochre in combat put are passable as a half knight.
Helverins still suffer from the guns being ok vs some armies but useless vs others (and do nothing in CC) not terrible to have on an objective but theirs a reason you hardly see them.
As to Moiraxs they are a valid consideration twin laslocks, twin graviton or one and a claw however mostly claw are going straight at the enemy.
Sure you can technically oscure the shootimg armigers but they are tall enough that on lots of boards it wont happen and with the smaller board many armys will shoot the length even if you can obscure a couple they will just slaughter the third or 4h
By the castigator logic any model could be faq'd and be upended - they could also improve - based on current known rules the castigator is solid (as a one) but its immunity to the extra relic warlord trait strat makes it a 1. It is in quite a balanced place.
Of note: "gains the Benefits from cover"-type rules give you Light cover only per the "Rare rules section of the new BRB, so you do get effective 2+ save from your knight in shooting.
So far the issue I've seen/heard from the games supposedly using the new 9th edition points is 2k of spacemarines looks very much little different (100-150 points) from an 8th edition list so far and I have lost 2 knights from full health against them plent of times. And those new melta primaris certainly look like they will be more than able to improve the marines odds of doing that reliably.
I really just wish GW would stop selling codex's saying yeah run this as a mono army then balancing around soup.
U02dah4 wrote: They should just acknowledge that certain codexs are balanced for soup and intended as such.
Ultra skewlists are bad either insta win or loss think 7th we dont want functional mono knights.
Marines will be nered once the data comes in. They are an outlier compared to other factions
Except skew isnt a thing since they brought in the flat wounding chart. You never get the 7th edition uninteractive list.
The whole point of said wounding chart was to enable thibgs like mono knight's etc without them being unbalanced.
Except GW still bows to mass histeria and still hasnt balanced marines almost a year after their codex.
60 guardsmen are easy to kill 200 are not because you probably have enough mass firepower to kill kill 60 but lascannoning a guardsmen is points inefficient
Same is true in reverse most TAC lists only have so many anti tank units - sure guardsmen can get lucky and wound a knight. But it takes 75-80 lasgun shots on avg assuming cover or armour of the sacred ion and not taranis. Thats really inefficient. 80 guardsmen at rf range doing 12 wounds in a game assuming no casualties and staying in rf everyturn. (Which wont happen as the knight will stomp stubber/flamer) if the guardsmen are in rf)
Sure vehicle damage tables help in theory but in reality 90% of knight list are mechanicus and 1CP we will ignore that feature.
You rarely see the 7th uninteractive skew lists because mono knights is not viable competatively due to missions and 200+ guardsmen are not viable with a clock (excepting aeldari flyers thar dissapear in ninth). But they are not fun
Your still taking a relic or a soup component and spending CP to gain cover which also realy is little different than Guard shooting Custodes jetbikes for the most part.
You could also drastically improve their efficiency if people would take heavy weapons in squads. They might have been less mobile but they were harder to kill.
It seems the issue is the modern obsession with maximum efficiency comming from specialisation and GW failing to take acount of that in points.
Also going back through all the editions I have played numerous times armies have been able to build skew lists and they often were not that dominant.
Seruously at this point it feels more like a dang marketing issue in they can make you buy more models and more codex's to actually make the game winable instead of being able to play the army they actually sold a codex for.
But to get this back on track so far Choas knights seem to have the easier time from the battlereports I have seeen but the Imperial Knights were up against spacemarines so that may be contributing to them getting steamrolled aswell.
However complaining about GW's inability to balance and not flip flop aside, I'm still going to try and make them work as best as I can.
A Moriax with twin Grav and the Mechnicus warlord trait allowing roll 2 pick for number of shots looks like it could be tasty.
Also I havent mathed it out yet I'll admit but I'm thinking a preceptor of all things could have some interesting play going all in on defences and trying to hold the mid board with Helverin for back board objectives, 3 grav/lightning lock moriax for the mid board and either 2 warglaive or more moriax for foward pressure. Depending in points I might consider a bare gallant for the old yolo charge deal with me or die style play, however if the new FW rules actually un screw my styrix, Lancer or Atropose I could see one of those in reserve being an interesting problem for many opponents to deal with. And thats all for 17-1800 points
Mechanics obviously and custom house though exactly which option will need pkaytesting.
Either taranis or imperium - defiant fury+stormstriders
Taranis has the edge on survivability if going second
but the other build ignores damage table for movement and only gets a single debuff to WS at a 1/4W becomming better at CC at half negateing a lot of the need for mechanicus and saving CP + with the extra point of move and charge the cerastus and moiraxs only need an 8" charge to make your opponents deployment zone (assuming 24" apart)
+ defiant fury makes valiant last stand pretty nasty in melee
I suspect it will depend upon what wepaons picj up the blast keyword as so far the thermal spear has it so no shooting that in CC the autocannons on the armiger dont, the battle cannon and Thermal do, as does the ironstorm pod.
I suspect Gravpulsar might become blast
I don't feel like the +1 advance and charge is better than the +1 wound to make me want to go imperial questor.
I feel like a CC boost and either stormstriders or blessed arm's is going to be a goto combo for me.
U02dah4 wrote: If your taking shooting knights it isnt but with all my knights being CC a 50% increase in the chance of CCing T1 15/36 is a big boost.
As to blast and knights their current rule might be faqed to allow them to fire as they do now
Yeah the day 1 FAQ and points will be key.
That they took away flank speed from carestus knights and didnt change the points made me sad they went from reliable Turn 1 charge with full tilt to turn 2 more often than not, which for a 400 plus point CC model isn't going to be good enough.
I genuinely don't think GW will be able to make a non raven cawls wrath castellen playable without changing something about the interactions between them.
I suspect aswell that the castellen has probably sold about as much as it will and will be allowed to live on the fluff players side of underpowered for quite a while, so yeah I could see a castellen being that many points in 9th.
The Valient they are trying but again the difference between its relic version and standard is high and the imperial side of the codex just had a hard tine competing with the Mechnicus side, maybe with the build your own house you could make it work, but I'm not sure how competitive it would be.
I'm just hoping Castigators will be good in 9th, as I just traded a significant amount of Death Guard stuff (since I'm getting out of Chaos) for 2 of them plus a couple of Armigers. My initial feeling is that they'll be decent unless they get a massive points hike (above what everything else is getting since I realize everything's going to be more expensive in 9th).
Anyone else find it rediculous that GW tried to use the forgeshrine as an example of a good fortification it's like they actually belive it's playable.
Yeah that was funny. Knights might have the worst terrain piece and it even was hit by nerfbat in 9th...
Ork one used to be nearly as bad but at least it had weak mw generator and now gives kustom jobs so save cp for cost of points. Knights don't have even that.
Castigators look intriguing. I think they might be better as Chaos Knights with multiple abilities to increase the damage on a weapon though. I'd really like to be wrong.
It feels like Imperial Knights have slightly better households and strategems, and Chaos Knights in 8th had better points values. I really want to play knights, but they need a few things out of 9th to be... not competitive but not auto-lose options.
Ice_can wrote: Anyone else find it rediculous that GW tried to use the forgeshrine as an example of a good fortification it's like they actually belive it's playable.
Hey now, it is playable; just fething useless for non-Imperialis.
Friendly reminder that Techpriests can only repair Questor Mechanicus knights, and that is just about the stupidest thing ever.
-However-
A Techpriest/techmarine on a Sacristan can give the full 3 repair while on a Sacristan(if you forgo your knight doing anything).
The seeming lack of change to the forge-shrine does make it even more useless with reloading and movement: Movement is self-explanatory, it is always better to just move and shoot toward your enemy/objective that load-in to the shrine and then get a small boost of movement sacrificing shooting that turn. Reloading without/with full shieldbreakers does very little against the units that you really want full attacks with(you know, the ones that already get full attacks vs our blast weapons); only the conflagration cannon and Helverins really gain any benefit from it.
Audustum wrote: Sorry to just jump in with a tangent, but I've been looking at them and has anybody tried out a Knight Asterius? How'd it'd do in your match-ups?
You buy an Asterius as a centrepiece for a whole house hold more than as a gaming piece to be honest, the same it true to a lesser extent with all FW products but the big knights haven't been viable since GW took over there rules.
If its any consolation we know points are being rebalanced in 2 weeks and fw rules are being seperatly updatedso so theres two opportunities for changes
Also while points are still depending, first smaller test games of 9th with 8th edition point's.
Armiger spam certainly works.
Helverins being able to shoot the entirety of the bored makes them not a bad backfield unit.
Moriax still solid and make a good midfield unit more punchy but with less range than a helverin. (Want to try claw and lightning lock as a loadout.)
Warglaives did me proud enough punch for anti tank and CC ability too.
I suspect 1 or 2 big boys will help out a lot at higher points but will be focused on dealing with bigger threats. Preceptor and crusader feel the most likely currently.
Custom households defo feel the way to go, Mechanicus with glorified history works well, that reroll didn't make as much difference as I would have liked but it can do work.
Was thinking the additional range trait but frankly with movement that Armiger have and the smaller bored, I rarely felt that range will ever be an issue, damage output improvement I think will be my focus.
Striking Scorpion 82 has put out points values for just about all the imperium stuff, Knights included.
Biggest change I saw was the Castellan going back down to around 620 unless I'm mathing wrong. Most of the basic knights seem to be more or less the same, though (in a separate forge world video) the forge world knights seem to sit around 460 each, give or take.
bmsattler wrote: Striking Scorpion 82 has put out points values for just about all the imperium stuff, Knights included.
Biggest change I saw was the Castellan going back down to around 620 unless I'm mathing wrong. Most of the basic knights seem to be more or less the same, though (in a separate forge world video) the forge world knights seem to sit around 460 each, give or take.
The castellen depends on if GW ment the weapons to be free or not as the Choas one is 730
Atropose +39
Styrix +25
Lancer +40
Castigator +30
Crusader with Termal +23
Crusader with RFBC +27
Gallant +28
Errant -3
Palladin +1
Preceptror +20
Warden +24
Helverin +18
Moirax +10
Warglaive +8
The stubber going to 5 points is a big contribution to a lot of the changes.
we're talking about different things then. Warden should be at 430. He doesn't show the book due to restrictions, but he's reading out of the field manual.
Crossing *everything* the free weapons stuff stays. Crusader and Castellans looking good. One got less of a nerf than I thought and one actually got a buff
Crossing *everything* the free weapons stuff stays. Crusader and Castellans looking good. One got less of a nerf than I thought and one actually got a buff
Maybe the sky isn’t falling
I think your going to see that FAQ'd to be 730 asap.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if it does I’ll just take 3 crusaders and trim my list down a wee bit
Automatically Appended Next Post: But If all the free weapons stuff gets changed it will shaft the army cause then crusaders and wardens become waaay overpriced 25%+ points hikes
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if it does I’ll just take 3 crusaders and trim my list down a wee bit
Automatically Appended Next Post: But If all the free weapons stuff gets changed it will shaft the army cause then crusaders and wardens become waaay overpriced 25%+ points hikes
So maybe the chaos stuff is the error?
The choas dominous class Knights can't weapon swap so their points matchih makes in GW land sence.
The Choas questorus class can do crazy things w
Like double thermal, double avenger hence why they have points for 1 and points for 2 and points for a single chassis.
Crusader and warden points won't change its purely the castellen thats wrong its currently less than a valient which is the true give away GW made a typo.
U02dah4 wrote: Im still of two minds custom seems to be the way for an assault list and maybe one with more of a second faction
But
Taranis survivability is still a huge boost on more knight heavy lists especially when going second
This is something we certainly agree on.
Maybe it's just my terrible rolling but I never found the 6+ made as much of a difference on the tabletop as people say it should.
Additionally you can't take it against any MW's there is plenty in the game these days
Oh, that does make a difference then. I was going to say every Knight but the Warden got gimped.
Still, I think my Knight build of choice now is the Warden with Ion Bulwark and the Paragon Gauntlet at 405 points, with maybe the 15 point Ironstorm for good measure. Belligerent Machine Spirit now has an obvious place: ignore the hit modifier in close combat and shred the hell out of them. The fact that it also has a Heavy Flamer means nobody is going to charge into this thing. The Relic gaunlet jumps its anti-tank melee damage from 10 to 18, which is the difference between killing most vehicles in one round which I think is a good investment.
Crossing *everything* the free weapons stuff stays. Crusader and Castellans looking good. One got less of a nerf than I thought and one actually got a buff
Maybe the sky isn’t falling
I think your going to see that FAQ'd to be 730 asap.
That’s likely but maybe chaos gets faqd Down instead of imperial up
Crossing *everything* the free weapons stuff stays. Crusader and Castellans looking good. One got less of a nerf than I thought and one actually got a buff
Maybe the sky isn’t falling
I think your going to see that FAQ'd to be 730 asap.
That’s likely but maybe chaos gets faqd Down instead of imperial up
They nerfed the Castellan because it was to good with a bunch of CP to pump into it.
Makes no sense to revert that change when they give all Knight armies a bunch of CP to pump with 9th.
New edition changed from kill for mission to score objectives with an emphasis on vehicles and vehicle hunters...
Taking a superheavy in a mixed force is now a high cp Cost and taking a superheavy detachment makes it hard to score missions....As well as All the nerfs to strats still stand.
In other words this isn’t a knight friendly edition....
At 730 this model isn’t viable heck at 630 You are hard pressed to win these missions with a knight detachment.
Crossing *everything* the free weapons stuff stays. Crusader and Castellans looking good. One got less of a nerf than I thought and one actually got a buff
Maybe the sky isn’t falling
I think your going to see that FAQ'd to be 730 asap.
That’s likely but maybe chaos gets faqd Down instead of imperial up
They nerfed the Castellan because it was to good with a bunch of CP to pump into it.
Makes no sense to revert that change when they give all Knight armies a bunch of CP to pump with 9th.
To be fair when it's not house raven with Cawls wrath and the stupid reroll every dice strategum it's horrifyingly over pointed but I'd rather that than risk everything else in the codex get nerfed for one stupid model.
Can't say I'll miss never seeing a castellen ever again.
Idiotic unit design and impoasible to balance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: New edition changed from kill for mission to score objectives with an emphasis on vehicles and vehicle hunters...
Taking a superheavy in a mixed force is now a high cp Cost and taking a superheavy detachment makes it hard to score missions....As well as All the nerfs to strats still stand.
In other words this isn’t a knight friendly edition....
My pure knight's lists is liking 9th just fine.
And souping in 1 knight should have pervented strategums and households full stop and force any super heavy aux knight to be a freeblade would have stoped castellens before they broke knoghts for 8th.
Nice
My lists is looking like
Preceptor * also now glad I built him with the multilaser.
1 helverin
3 moriax
2 warglaves
Will test out second big knight to see what works or go with more moriax as they seemed to come out of the points change best as they dont have to pay 5pt for a stubber.
Whoops I meant 3x 10 guardsmen and it’s also a spearhead not a patrol
And yeah I’d have more CP...but by electing a guard character as a warlord - and forgoing his trait you can choose to make 2 basilisks flat 3 damage. (Using the tank ace strat too)
So the idea is you have 2 flat 3 damage basilisks shelling the enemies cheesing obscuring LOS. The Guardsmen push up to objectives or act as a screen and then the knights move up to the mid board
It’s a variation in what i was finding success with tail end of 8th
Ideasweasel wrote: Whoops I meant 3x 10 guardsmen and it’s also a spearhead not a patrol
And yeah I’d have more CP...but by electing a guard character as a warlord - and forgoing his trait you can choose to make 2 basilisks flat 3 damage. (Using the tank ace strat too)
So the idea is you have 2 flat 3 damage basilisks shelling the enemies cheesing obscuring LOS. The Guardsmen push up to objectives or act as a screen and then the knights move up to the mid board
It’s a variation in what i was finding success with tail end of 8th
You should make it a Patrol in 9th: recoup the CPs since your WL is in the guard list, as it stands now you are spending 10CPs just to field it(3 for Spearhead, 6 For Superheavy, and 1 for second Tank Ace). Making it a patrol(with both Bassies in 1 datasheet vehicle squadron) will only spend 7.
Crossing *everything* the free weapons stuff stays. Crusader and Castellans looking good. One got less of a nerf than I thought and one actually got a buff
Maybe the sky isn’t falling
I think your going to see that FAQ'd to be 730 asap.
That’s likely but maybe chaos gets faqd Down instead of imperial up
It'd be really weird to have such a unique gun not be rolled into the cost of the model like it is everywhere else.
Ideasweasel wrote: Anyone read up on assassins? Are we able to take one in a SHD or do we need to spend 2CP using the old strat/take an auxiliary?
Can’t seem to find what I’m looking for
Agents of the Imperium Only let's you take them in Patrol, Brigade, and Battalion.
Execution Force only allows Vanguard detachments.
We do not know yet is War of the Spider supercedes the old Strats(as in they are removed and replaced with only the ones in PA: War of the Spider), so maybe; maybe not on using the old strat.
an Auxiliary Detachment still works, but you might as well just take a patrol for the same CP(and additional scoring unit{s}).
In particular, I've been considering a pair of Knights (possibly a third) with perhaps 6 Armigers total (2 of each type).
Having skimmed several guides, there's one combination that I hadn't seen discussed much (or at least, that I could find - I doubt I'm the first) which I was considering for my primary Warlord.
House Krast Cerastus Knight-Castigator with The Headsman's Mark. With a 16 shot Avenger cannon equivalent, you're getting plenty of bang for your buck for each +1 or +2 D you add, and its Tempest Warblade seems like it benefits extremely well from the same, as it has the Strength needed to wound almost anything (even Knights) on 3+ or better, the AP to get through most armor, and up to 5 flat D per hit... and you get twice the number of attacks.
8 S14 -3 5D attacks (rerolling 1's if you charged) against an enemy knight seems like it'd be respectable output for such a versatile build - Reaper Chainswords would be 4 8D attacks but otherwise the same, which seems to strongly favor the Tempest Warblade. Gauntlets still hit harder, I'm sure, but the Warblade's consistency through quantity seems like it helps lessen the gap considerably (and is also a great middle ground between stomps and Gauntlet attacks for elite-but-not-Titan enemy models).
All this on a foundation that's a little bit faster and has a few more wounds.
Lots of great warlord traits could apply here, seems like, since this Knight defaults to pretty good shooting AND melee - the T'au player in me leans towards a constant 4++ vs ranged attacks, or rerolling 1s to hit... But 10 Tempest Warblade Attacks a round is reaching Smash Captain levels of terrifying, and would be great combined with that attack-boosting Stratagem.
Am I completely off my rocker here? Again, total newb to Imperial Knights here, all I know is based on a few newbie guides.
In particular, I've been considering a pair of Knights (possibly a third) with perhaps 6 Armigers total (2 of each type).
Having skimmed several guides, there's one combination that I hadn't seen discussed much (or at least, that I could find - I doubt I'm the first) which I was considering for my primary Warlord.
House Krast Cerastus Knight-Castigator with The Headsman's Mark. With a 16 shot Avenger cannon equivalent, you're getting plenty of bang for your buck for each +1 or +2 D you add, and its Tempest Warblade seems like it benefits extremely well from the same, as it has the Strength needed to wound almost anything (even Knights) on 3+ or better, the AP to get through most armor, and up to 5 flat D per hit... and you get twice the number of attacks.
8 S14 -3 5D attacks (rerolling 1's if you charged) against an enemy knight seems like it'd be respectable output for such a versatile build - Reaper Chainswords would be 4 8D attacks but otherwise the same, which seems to strongly favor the Tempest Warblade. Gauntlets still hit harder, I'm sure, but the Warblade's consistency through quantity seems like it helps lessen the gap considerably (and is also a great middle ground between stomps and Gauntlet attacks for elite-but-not-Titan enemy models).
All this on a foundation that's a little bit faster and has a few more wounds.
Lots of great warlord traits could apply here, seems like, since this Knight defaults to pretty good shooting AND melee - the T'au player in me leans towards a constant 4++ vs ranged attacks, or rerolling 1s to hit... But 10 Tempest Warblade Attacks a round is reaching Smash Captain levels of terrifying, and would be great combined with that attack-boosting Stratagem.
Am I completely off my rocker here? Again, total newb to Imperial Knights here, all I know is based on a few newbie guides.
I've been running a headsman Castigator for a while, and it also stacks pretty well with first knight. The only drawback is the Casti really likes to be in CC, so Sanctuary is a super strong pick for it. For that reason I still prefer the mark on another knight I think.
I'm looking to update my armies for a post soup world. My knights are one of the closer armies to 2000 poitns, but I'm a tad shy. I've got a pair of Helverins and 3 fully magnetized Questoris kits (only 2 Avenger/Gauntlet sets though) but feeling like I need something else to fill out the army. Any thoughts on what to add to the collection? I'm considering a pair of Warglaives which fits pretty well from what I can tell with a Crusader, 2 Heverins, 2 Warglaives, 2 Gallants. Feels a little light on ranged output though.
JNAProductions wrote: Wouldn't the Reaper be doing 8 Damage against an enemy Knight?
I stealth edited that in. Closer, but I still think twice the attacks at 5 damage is superior in most fronts (even at -1 damage to attacks).
Oh, definitely.
You're looking at...
8 swings
16/3 hits
32/9 wounds
160/54 or 80/27 unsaved, for about 15 damage
As opposed to...
4 swings
8/3 hits
16/9 wounds
80/54, or 40/27 unsaved, for about 12.
And Titanic Feet, just for fun!
12 swing
24/3 hits
12/3 wounds
24/9 unsaved, for about 10 or 11 damage.
Pretty respectable, actually.
Erm... 24/9=8/3=2.67
Double that for d3 damage, and you get about 5-6 damage.
Unless the FW Knight has flat 3 damage feet or something, in which case, that's still off, because it'd be 8.
Titanic Feet are a weapon, just as much as the Castigator Bolt Cannon and the Tempest Warblade. Headsman's Mark makes no distinction between weapons, affecting them all equally.
So against Titans, they're d3+2 Damage. Against mere 10+ wound models, they're d3+1.
LunarSol wrote: I'm looking to update my armies for a post soup world. My knights are one of the closer armies to 2000 poitns, but I'm a tad shy. I've got a pair of Helverins and 3 fully magnetized Questoris kits (only 2 Avenger/Gauntlet sets though) but feeling like I need something else to fill out the army. Any thoughts on what to add to the collection? I'm considering a pair of Warglaives which fits pretty well from what I can tell with a Crusader, 2 Heverins, 2 Warglaives, 2 Gallants. Feels a little light on ranged output though.
I think more Warglaives would be the way to go. I don't see a reason to run more than 3 Questoris in 9th edition. I think for pure Knights, one Helverin is mandatory to hold a backfield objective with a minimal opportunity cost, but I wouldn't take more than that.
The trick to Warglaives is they get a lot better the more you have, owing to Pack Tactics and Pack Hunters. I think the sweet spot is 4, where you can reliably get full benefit from Pack Tactics.
I think a good 2000pt pure Knight list looks like
3 Knights, ~1350
3 Warglaives ~465
1 Helverin ~170
Really I'd want to take 4 Warglaives and 3 Gallant/Preceptors with 1 Helverin, but you can't fit it into one Super Heavy Detachment, and I don't think one extra Warglaive is worth 3CP. Maybe you run 2 cheap Questoris and can squeeze in a Dominus.
I think that the biggest problem Knights are facing right now is that 9th edition missions strongly emphasize holding objectives. Knights don't like being stationary, and don't have obsec.
1. I miss that 6th turn to rack up extra points
2. This is still very much a shooty edition. Melee means you move off objectives
3. Knights struggle for good secondaries. Other armies get easy 15VP ones like banner, kill titanic, psychic etc
4. Pure knights lacks the volume of fire, durability and ability to play the missions. Even if your doing respectable moving and killing your opponent can run away with it
5. The fixed board, objectives, and mission is nice.
6. Obscuring terrain- well you would almost wish to be 17 wounds. Tournament organisers will have to specify terrain types cause voting for obscuring terrain is akin to turkies voting for Christmas.
7. Allies might be useful but remains a tricky equation on what to take
8. It’s great to be gaming again
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Played against tau for reference)
Automatically Appended Next Post: 9. I went second, it’s a first turn game more then ever
Then your playing knights wrong. Or foolishly trying to mono them and discovering why you don't if only there was some kind of precedent that knight armies had where they took a few cheap objective holding units....(32, 17)
I'm planning admech+ knights
Purge the enemy objectives are all doable by knights but the best choice may vary based on your opponents list
Warpcraft objectives need allies to unlock id generaly ignore none of them are easy for any army and they are easy to counterplay
No mercy no respite - other than "while we stand" their all doable and attrition is tailor made for a knight heavy list
Supremacy skip domination but the other two are doable in the right list and linebreaker is my personal choice as my knights and allies will hit their deployment zone T1
Shadow operations need allies to unlock again id generally ignore
So straight away mono knights in looking at attrition (auto win), linebreaker and the best kill choice based on my opponents list
Raze and minimise losses are also both acheivable in mono knights with other 4 viable choices with allies
2) if you playing knights you want to be in melee or your not getting value and you will lose the shooting war - and obscuring terrain doesnt matter if your armies are 3" from each other
3) You are trying to win a shoot out vs TAU! A dedicated shooting army when your not a dedicated shooting army. When TAU are easily butchered in melee. Your always going to lose that contest if you play it that way
4) it most definitely isnt a pure shooting edition melee gained a lot of buffs in smaller board sizes and loss of overwatch its not a tagging game anymore but against most lists you want your knights to be attempting the charge T1
1. I miss that 6th turn to rack up extra points
2. This is still very much a shooty edition. Melee means you move off objectives
3. Knights struggle for good secondaries. Other armies get easy 15VP ones like banner, kill titanic, psychic etc
4. Pure knights lacks the volume of fire, durability and ability to play the missions. Even if your doing respectable moving and killing your opponent can run away with it
5. The fixed board, objectives, and mission is nice.
6. Obscuring terrain- well you would almost wish to be 17 wounds. Tournament organisers will have to specify terrain types cause voting for obscuring terrain is akin to turkies voting for Christmas.
7. Allies might be useful but remains a tricky equation on what to take
8. It’s great to be gaming again
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Played against tau for reference)
Automatically Appended Next Post: 9. I went second, it’s a first turn game more then ever
Final score 81-63
Which armigers as they all play very differently.
Don't play a shooting match with Guard or Tau they pay less per gun hence have more and will win.
You seem to have hmsadly also hit the bad spot between not going all in of Questorus plus knight's which are harder to kill with relics etc or going all in on armiger spamming.
U02dah4 is pretry much spot on qith his secondary choices with maybe Abhore the witch being viable vrs certain match ups TS &GK.
Also the objectives are mid board knights should be taking the mid board turn 1 and more than capable of holding it, if having a hard time profitering into CC from holding the objective anyway.
It was hammer and anvil and getting into melee was tricky and against tau sept not exactly fun.
Not sure what to take from Admech. I also think skipping the armigers and just taking 4 big knights would mean you get no primary points. No?
I’m only 1 game into 9th so welcome the criticism.
You can still get primary objective points with full bigguns, not much different in ease of scoring than Armigers(no obsec on either).
If you were to ally in Admech, you just take a patrol with some bare Skitarri and a Techpriest(or 2). The benefits are 2-fold: Obsec units to take-and-hold objectives, and the HQ can repair your knights(1 wound/turn, but still). Total Cost for a 1 Priest and 2 skitarri Patrol is only 125 points, add in a second engineseer or a 3rd skitarri unit and you have the cost of an armiger(3rd unit Helverin, second HQ is exactly a Warglaive with Melta).
Anyone else thinking 3 questoris and the rest of your points on an ally might be the way to go in 9e, maybe with transports for you allies? Barebone detachments will just get wiped off the board, and shooting at transports is really not what your opponent wants to be doing when up against 3 knights...
grouchoben wrote: Anyone else thinking 3 questoris and the rest of your points on an ally might be the way to go in 9e, maybe with transports for you allies? Barebone detachments will just get wiped off the board, and shooting at transports is really not what your opponent wants to be doing when up against 3 knights...
3 questoris could be ok
But personnally 2 big and to small seemed more balanced 3 big sounds great in principle but your not making the most of your allies and the CP costs become significantly higher due to relics etc - fine if your allies guard but admech like cp aswell
Im looking at approximately castigator, preceptor and 2 grav/claw moiraxs a couple of maxed out raiders and a little 3 man, 3 vanguards, 1 hoplite, 1 corpuscarii and two enginseers
Well, the tournament rules just leaked. You're not allowed to take specialist detachments at all anymore. That might be a consideration for your Guard patrol.
Ideasweasel wrote: Anyone had the chance to try out some games with 9th rules. Any hot takes? Fun stories?
Yeah played a few smaller games we decied to try and get scoring ans secondary missions down before jumping to 2k as the games are a bit slower as your trying to learn all the rules.
Objective capping is key, playing agressive can pay of big, the enemy's manovarability will be your biggest challenge aswell as obsec body spam.
Knight's with CP is so good and being an army that likes to fight from the midboard + definataly seems to mesh well with scoring both primary and secondarys.
I've had a few games with IK and CK, running a Castigator and 2 Questoris, with soup of either Space Wolves or World Eaters.
It's really early days but to my mind there are two big elements to 9e missions: holding objectives and denying your opponent's attempts to score. Knights are pretty good at denying, but we'll need other elements for holding and taking.
A Crusader or Castagator would be the better options but I dont have a Castagator yet and I want to see what happens with the new FW books as I am hoping for some improvement to the performance of a couple of knight's but I'm not hopeful as GW hasn't changed their points since the nerfed them.
I magnatised my Moriax so I'm able to change them up on the fly during testing
Currently playing them mostly with 1 Lightning lock and either volkite or Grav so far.
I like the Lightning locks for single wound units, the grav is great against Custodes and Gravis. Volkite does a nice consistent number on primaris, but it has issues when you start hitting 3w &/or the 5+FNP nonsense.
I would say the loadout will probably continue to evelove as we start to see what the meta is for 9th.
Taranis superheavy 2x crusaders 1x crusader with Ironstorm missile pod (WL)
Do you think this could work?
I'm interested to hear how this works out. I'm leery of your lack of melee options. It'll be hard to actually shift enemies off objectives, but maybe the Crusader's feet are enough.
I'm also not convinced that a few 5 man squads actually work as ObSec, so that's what I'm most interested to hear about. It seems like if the opponent is already contesting the objective, it's not much more work to kill 5 bodies. If some backfielder comes by and assaults the Vanguard to death, they can sit in close combat with the Drill for the rest of the game and control the objective despite it.
I've run this list in a couple simulated games:
Spoiler:
1500, 8CP Super Heavy Detachment, House Husak, Glorified History, Hounds of War Preceptor, Multi-laser, Thunderstrike, Ironstorm, 425 [Ion Shielded, Paragon] 2 Warglaives, 2 Meltas, 320 745
It plays exactly how it looks: a big blob of AdMech following the Knights. The list is surprisingly fast though, the Vanguard move ~12" and the slowest units are the Dunecrawlers. Regarding scoring objectives, I led with the Knights and Ruststalkers to open space, then brought the Vanguard on behind them. It was pretty hard for the opponent to retake objectives with so much stuff in the way, since the Vanguard outscored any token attempts to contest. This was extremely valuable when I played against the orks; they just couldn't get enough boyz in to contest.
Meta - lots of people expect vehicles because they got better so people may pack AP initially but vehicles arn't that great at objectives and if people are packing AP/Dam then infantry lists might be stronger and as people remove AP/dam for more shots knights get stronger. In a general a high AP vehicle meta knights will do worse and an infantry a meta will favour them. However gets time and data to know a meta both generally and locally.
Knights themselves - lost fewer points than a lot of other factions and more CP in mono both big buffs and enginewar provided minor buffs - all putting knights in a beter position than 8th but with the caveat that mono knights position in 8th was team tournament skew list only so better doesn't mean good.
Missions - knights are not good at objective holding -scoreing primary but are good at clearing objectives - denying your opponent by directing firepower to select parts of your opponents army. In secondarys objective and board holding secondarys are tough for knights but acheivable if you play melee knight lists but probably not while objective sitting. while you give away one secondary you can probably deny the others quite well - Either way it will likely mean both players are low scoreing but low scoreing doesnt matter its the difference and thats less ear
Going first. Enemys can now counter position knights more easily now its not whole army deployment - and in 8th I found knight heavy lists would mostly win when they went first but often died hard when they went second - in not sure that changes. What might change is that with fewer points slightly less armies may be able to table a knight T1
Tau riptides will do fine for deleting knights, Admech is another army that can shoot a knight off the board with ease, guard too probably. Although got a bit trickier without hammer of sunderance.
Agree though that we won’t really know till things shake out of and when tournaments come back to life
Admech are always a minority of players atleast in the uk meta and even then only mars castle which isnt great for missions. non castle took a lot of hits like the loss of dragoon
IHateNids wrote: I’m fairly certain that Necrons will also have no trouble downing a knight in one turn.
I’m not sure how I feel about that given I play both sides
Necrons are going to be in a wierd place In a months time I would guess they will either be marines 2.0 and destroying the game against everyone else or actually just finally up to competitive but will still have the Marines are OP issue every other faction has to deal with.
I just hope GW don't do you guys dirty like 8th.
On the loosing a knight a turn issue the other advantage is with reserves, lets be honest my 8th knights list maxed at 12 CP with non during the game and I rarely ran out.
In 9th its 12cp plus 5 turns of have a CP. Even if its 3CP to reserve a Knight that's not the worst option especially given most knight weapons can hit atleast half the board as long as you can deploy for Line of sight.
I've heard a lot of people talking about spending CP to take some AdMech along with their Knights, but is it worth it to bring along some Guard instead for holding objectives and stuff? AdMech does seem better in most situations especially now that Guardsmen are 5 ppm, but Guard have some surprising mobility with Move! Move! Move! and/or cheap transports. I own some Guard stuff, including a couple of HWTs with Mortars (went all-in on those before they got nerfed ) and a Leman Russ, but I'm not sure if any of that works well alongside Knights anymore.
One of the reasons many players choose Admech as their preferred allies is Knight of the Cog and the Mars canticle (also shroudspalm) can really benefit your knights. And occasionally a repair from a nearby tech-priest. If you’re going to bring some cheap allied troops to hold objectives and perform actions, why not go for the codex that can grant some benefit to the knights themselves?
I’m sure Guard allies are fine, but you don’t get the same synergies.
I've got more anecdotes from another simulated battle. On reflection from the last games, I felt like the Dominus' Artisan trait wasn't doing that much and I felt like I was missing out on Warglaive stratagem value without a third. I decided to trim the fat and tested this list against my ork opponent:
Spoiler:
1496, 9CP Super Heavy Detachment, House Husak, Glorified History, Hounds of War Preceptor, Multi-laser, Thunderstrike, Ironstorm, 425 [Ion Shielded, Paragon] 3 Warglaives, 3 Stubbers, 465 890
The third Warglaive made a world of difference. I used Pack Hunters liberally and it was a huge boost, despite the small gamble of paying before you need it. I tried to charge from 7 or 8". If it re-rolls one charge, that's slightly better than a command re-roll (since ~40% of the time you'll have already used up the command re-roll on the first Warglaive). I crunched the numbers on each charge in my game, and ~70% of the time Pack Hunters re-rolls at least one charge. Over the course of the game I made 10 charges, missed one of them after re-rolls, and payed for 1 command re-roll and 3 Pack Hunters. Only once was Pack Hunters wasted, and it never had to re-roll both charges. It's important to note that you don't have to charge the same target. This definitely wasn't as good in 8th since you wouldn't have had enough CP to throw around.
Despite paying for Pack Hunters and Pack Tactics, I still had enough CP to Rotate Ion Shields on the Warglaives sometimes. That made them really hard to finish off. They're small enough to use Obscuring terrain, so the really injured ones can hide. I think between the three they regenerated 12 wounds, and I even double repaired one with the Manipulus in a later round. This also had the knock-on effect of making my Preceptor survive a lot longer.
The other thing I noticed was that I never needed Hounds of War since the Warglaives were proactive. I'm torn between Noble Combatants, Slayers of Beasts, and Stormstriders as a replacement. That's something I'll just have to crunch numbers on.
Here's another funny idea I'm tempted to try: Landstrider on one of the Warglaives. You can nominate a Warglaive as a character with Knight Lance which makes it eligible to be your Warlord. Then, you pay 1 CP for Exalted Court on the Knight to make it a character for another Warlord trait and qualify it to take a Relic. Essentially, 1 CP for a Warlord trait on the Warglaive. It's probably the only trait worth taking on a Warglaive, and it might paint too big a target on him, but it would be a huge boost to their threat range.
ZergSmasher wrote: I've heard a lot of people talking about spending CP to take some AdMech along with their Knights, but is it worth it to bring along some Guard instead for holding objectives and stuff? AdMech does seem better in most situations especially now that Guardsmen are 5 ppm, but Guard have some surprising mobility with Move! Move! Move! and/or cheap transports. I own some Guard stuff, including a couple of HWTs with Mortars (went all-in on those before they got nerfed ) and a Leman Russ, but I'm not sure if any of that works well alongside Knights anymore.
I own both and both have there merits it depends how many points your spending and what your trying to do mission wise.
I gotta say, AdMech doesn't have much special synergy with Knights compared to Guard. Yes, technically we can repair the Knights but that requires an HQ choice to be within 3" of one. We can share the canticle with one Knight, but the HQ needs to be within 6". These are really not gameplay defining effects, and won't even come up in most games.
I'm super well versed in Guard, but I think they could solve Knight's weaknesses way more efficiently than AdMech. You've got fast, exceptionally cheap troops. You also can bring either efficient artillery or T8 vehicles to help threat overload. Knights are inherently a skew army, so you have to lean into that with your allies.
I 100% agree. 12+2d6" moving obsec troops is wild and unbalances 9e quite a bit, and makes a great backbone for Knight allies. Then Basilisks to kill campers and non-LoS. I even think Hellhounds might be worth a look now as they really can't be ignored any more, given how their close-range threat has gone through the roof with their ability to shoot into combat and then explode.
IHateNids wrote: I’m fairly certain that Necrons will also have no trouble downing a knight in one turn.
I’m not sure how I feel about that given I play both sides
Oh? Have they received some buff I have missed? 3 DDA averages 11 wounds or so. Pretty hard to see where you get remaining 13 wounds efficiently. 3 tesserak arks will result in less and costs another 600 pts or so. Dunno how much pylon costs in 9th but even in 8th that one shots at 37.8% rate and generally takes nerfbat in 9th ed core rules and missions.
Dunno. Necrons have for me always struggled a bit with vehicles. 3 DDA and squadron of squishy destroyers take you only so far.
Definitelllly the first, as it can actually contest objectives, which is now the name of the 9e game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: However I'd actualy look at custome regiment with that setup - troops always getting cover saves and extended rapid fire range seems to suit it better - you're not really going into catachan speciality (Harker & priest) so a big uptick in survivability of your little fleshy minions would help a lot.
Sure dude, sounds good. I guess I'd just want my trait to be affecting 60 models not one, but I 100% get where you're coming from, especially with full payload.
My thinking was that 18" may allow some more damaging anti-infantry plinking between objectives. With FRFSRF, 40 shots out to 18" sounds okayish (I think it's basically 1 dead intercessor with no rerolls.) But it's just a guess, definitely the kind of thing to tweak and play with!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Or lean into catachan, bring Harker and a priest, and go punch those marines in the face
Yeah that might be an idea. Will have to see if I’d miss the thermal cannons on the knights. But freeing up a few points there could help squeeze it in
I used to love my double basilisks, wyvern etc. But not it’s really hard to squeeze what you want in
Ideasweasel wrote: Wait knight of the cog now requires you to be within 6” ? Really
Sorry, it's still 12". I can never remember that one.
On the issue of Catachans, you should definitely go with melee Guard. I'm biased because the idea is badass, but you do also need to be able to put your scoring troops on objectives. Your opponent has a much harder time screening you out if you're willing to assault into him. You don't even necessarily have to be great in close combat since all you need is to dip a toe within 3" of the marker and stay there. I don't know if you need Harker, but I think a Priest or two wouldn't go amiss.
Recap of tonight’s game versus a very dreadnought heavy iron hands list (seriously almost all dreads lol)
About 65-50 final score
I lost on primaries. I played the 60 guard list mentioned above. I just found they got hosed off objectives and going second is really tough. The fact they have to live through a turn of return fire makes squishy T3 fragile to score
I had done ok shooting most of the enemies heavy hitters but once my 3rd knight fell it was rough.
I think next game I’m going to play a pure knights list with a Castellan. Just for a giggle. I’ll either lose early on or put a dent in the enemy hopefully to make things interesting
That is interesting, I'd've thought 60 bodies would be hard for Dreadnoughts clear. What was doing most of the damage? Like, how many bodies were you losing per turn?
IHateNids wrote: I’m fairly certain that Necrons will also have no trouble downing a knight in one turn.
I’m not sure how I feel about that given I play both sides
Oh? Have they received some buff I have missed? 3 DDA averages 11 wounds or so. Pretty hard to see where you get remaining 13 wounds efficiently. 3 tesserak arks will result in less and costs another 600 pts or so. Dunno how much pylon costs in 9th but even in 8th that one shots at 37.8% rate and generally takes nerfbat in 9th ed core rules and missions.
Dunno. Necrons have for me always struggled a bit with vehicles. 3 DDA and squadron of squishy destroyers take you only so far.
Basically, the new Overlord can buff the shooting of vehicles now, so DDA got more efficient. In addition, the vehicle USR to move & fire heavy means that the Stalker is also now a really good force multiplier, on top of the fact the flyers aren't troll pick fo rthe tri-bomb gimmick
Those buffs, coupled with the projected stats on the new shooty destroyers & the Cannon Walker mean that Necron threat to knights got dialled up from "Maybe 3 DDAs will bring it down if I've got hot dice" to "I'm pretty sure one's toast, two is very possible now"
That's not accounting for the FW Superheavies either, and GPs still nuke knights like it's going out of buisness.
So yeah, I am an excited Xeno, and a terrified Noble, becuase I know at least one of my local's FOTM asshats is picking up Necrons with Indomitus
Can't wait to be told how to play my army of 12 years "correctly"
We both picked the king of the hill style secondary (forgot the name) I picked the banners one, and then the kill vehicles one. Cant recall my opponents 3rd secondary but he picked titan kliller one cause why wouldn't he.
I just found that when I plonked guardsmen on an objective (even two squads at one point) he had enough volume of fire to kill them. The dreads each had over 20 shots with reroll shenanigans and he had moved into the centre of the board
The dreads were no slouch in melee and capable of bitch slapping my knights. it made the fight for the centre tricky. I needed my knights to contribute to holding the centre and whilst I tried I had to then strategically fallback as they where in danger of getting punched to death.
Going second really hurts. I am not a fan of the pregame format. the roll for who wins deployment seems pointless if you are playing a balanced tournament map. one positive is obscuring terrain didn't make too much of a difference though. I think maybe I over thought that one and its not as terrible for us as initially thought
I think for a future list im going with more firepower and something to be aggressive in the middle. Non LOS stuff like a manticore is fine but it feels less useful in not being on an objective. Just killing stuff alone isnt enough. So perhaps a tank commander or something melee based will be my next addition
Game isn't designed for symmetric maps. But the roll off after deployment certainly push toward 1st turn. Ca19 with asymmetric boards alpha strike and 1st turn was seriously reduced in impact.
The game might not be designed for it (which is weird considering the involvement of the play testers and tournament community. The nova guy, frontline guys etc)
But unless tournaments start running more narrative style games, you would think a lot of the terrain and systems that are used would spill over into 9th?
I dunno maybe I’m way off course here but I think symmetrical maps are a good thing for balance.
Slightly boring perhaps but make for a fairer experience overall.
I’m not going to judge 9th in full till I’ve had 20+ games under my belt but the one thing that feels a step back is pregame deployment and establishing first turn. I like the maps have objectives baked in. I like that they have the type of deployment zones specified but it feels like something is missing.
I agree, I think the glaring letdown with 9e is first turn asymmetry, especially when we'd got to the point in 8e ITC where going second was very often to be preferred...
The problem is hard-baked into their scoring system. If the progressive scoring occurred at the end of the battleturn, I think that alone might be enough to balance 1st and 2nd.
With the new missions, is there scope for a Freeblade Armiger, Sworn to a Quest (reroll 1s against warlord, Obj Sec)?
Fast moving unit with a big base like a Warglaive seems like it'd be useful on the surface, or making your backfield Helverin need enemy troops to push it off an objective.
You'd not losing as much from your House traits as you would with a Questoris Freeblade.
Ideasweasel wrote: We both picked the king of the hill style secondary (forgot the name) I picked the banners one, and then the kill vehicles one. Cant recall my opponents 3rd secondary but he picked titan kliller one cause why wouldn't he. I just found that when I plonked guardsmen on an objective (even two squads at one point) he had enough volume of fire to kill them. The dreads each had over 20 shots with reroll shenanigans and he had moved into the centre of the board. The dreads were no slouch in melee and capable of bitch slapping my knights. it made the fight for the centre tricky. I needed my knights to contribute to holding the centre and whilst I tried I had to then strategically fallback as they where in danger of getting punched to death.
I think for a future list im going with more firepower and something to be aggressive in the middle. Non LOS stuff like a manticore is fine but it feels less useful in not being on an objective. Just killing stuff alone isnt enough. So perhaps a tank commander or something melee based will be my next addition
By King of the Hill, I assume you were playing the No Man's Land mission with its secondary. I don't mean to backseat game, I hope you don't mind if I just consider the puzzle in abstract.
Spoiler:
It looks like a hard match-up to win. It's hard to contest the center without a Gallant or some Warglaives to fight off the melee Dreads. Assuming you can plant your whole army on 2 objectives and keep him off them, that's 40 points on primary. I don't exactly like the odds of 2 Crusaders killing 6 or 7 Dreadnoughts, so Bring It Down and Thin Their Ranks are going to be hard to max. Still, you can score about 10 points with those while keeping your army tight together. Raise the Banners is an easy 10 points, but you can't score more than that. With that plan you can expect to score 70. He's going to score 45 on primary, 15 on Titan Slayer, 15 on hold center, let's say 10 points for the third, for 85 total.
I think instead of Raise the Banner, you can go for Linebreaker; it spreads your army out a little more, but it has the potential to score 15. Depending on the terrain, you might be able to get away with Repair the Teleport Homer too. Just build your own objective in the corner of the map, with blackjack and hookers. Put a Knight and 30 infantry there. That might spread a Dreadnought list too thin, since they have to firmly hold the center, two backfields, and attack 3 objectives all at once. If you succeed, you'd expect to score 80-85 points against his 85-90. That starts to resemble a game.
I agree your assessment on list changes. My own experiences have led me to add more melee. I think you can probably swap the Warden to a Gallant, and switch the Manticore for more anti-tank. You can probably bring a Lascannon in every infantry squad, which would make that firepower really hard to degrade.
Ideasweasel wrote: Going second really hurts. I am not a fan of the pregame format. the roll for who wins deployment seems pointless if you are playing a balanced tournament map. one positive is obscuring terrain didn't make too much of a difference though. I think maybe I over thought that one and its not as terrible for us as initially thought
The roll for winning deployment is literally just to make players place terrain fairly. Like if you have two kids cutting a cake, the first kid cuts both pieces but the second gets to pick. It's a prisoner's dilemma that encourages fair play. So to your point, yeah, it doesn't do anything in tournament play if the boards are already symmetrical.
grouchoben wrote: I agree, I think the glaring letdown with 9e is first turn asymmetry, especially when we'd got to the point in 8e ITC where going second was very often to be preferred...
The problem is hard-baked into their scoring system. If the progressive scoring occurred at the end of the battleturn, I think that alone might be enough to balance 1st and 2nd.
I would not be surprised if we go back to scoring at the end of the battle round for ITC anyway, at least for the Primaries.
Tastyfish wrote: With the new missions, is there scope for a Freeblade Armiger, Sworn to a Quest (reroll 1s against warlord, Obj Sec)?
Fast moving unit with a big base like a Warglaive seems like it'd be useful on the surface, or making your backfield Helverin need enemy troops to push it off an objective.
You'd not losing as much from your House traits as you would with a Questoris Freeblade.
I think this is definitely an option for pure Knights. I wouldn't use it on a Warglaive, since they need the Household tag for both their Stratagems. I think it's unlikely that the Warglaive is going to steal a midfield objective anyway. I think it's definitely a good idea to run it on a backfield Helverin though, since it stops fast units from contesting. Amusingly, the Helverin's Thin Their Ranks strat doesn't require <Household>, so you don't lose anything. The best burdens are probably Exiled in Shame and Haunted by Failure. Obsessed with Vengeance and Impetuous Nature can totally screw you (unless 9th's codifying "remain stationary" as a movement option nullifies Impetuous Nature, in which case it becomes the best option). Driven to Slaughter is often -3 BS, Weary Machine Spirit is often -1, and Haunted by Failure is -0.33.
I like analysing games and seeing where I can improve etc. I’m appreciative of all the feedback.
The mission was number 5 from the GT book. There are 8 missions I believe and this map is called the scouring. It’s a hammer and anvil one.
The secondary I picked that is like king of the hill is actually named investigate sites - so it’s an infantry only king is the hill style thing.
I’m fully willing to accept in addition to a wonky list, in game miss plays, I’ve also definitely not figured out what sort of secondaries are good to go for
Although this game I did ok with secondaries, only being on 1-2 objectives meant I was a good 10-15 behind him at the games end. You really have to be on at least 2 for all 5 turns. And because he pushed up it meant I had to come off the second objective to avoid getting charged
He has deployed aggressively on the line as well as winning the roll so he just moved the dreads up
I’ll stick a photo of deployment in my dakka file if you want to see
Automatically Appended Next Post: *gallery file
There is a significant amount of proxies in this game and the photo quality is terrible - just as a disclaimer haha
The majority of my guardsman are hiding in various terrain pieces and turn 1-5 I flung them up and onto objectives whilst moving the knights up.
Oh man, that is an entirely different proposition then. I can't see the gallery image, but color me hugely impressed you kept the game that competitive.
For those that don't have access to the GT book, the mission has 5 objective markers, all outside the deployment zones. You score 5 VPs for controlling 2 objectives, 5 for controlling 3, and 5 more for controlling more than your opponent. So if you manage to hold 3, you score 15 and your opponent scores 5 rather than 10. You have to throw yourself at the center with reckless abandon to keep your opponent from scoring 15 and building an insurmountable lead.
Pure Knights just don't have the tools to deal with this mission. You're actually pretty fortunate you had so many scoring troops. The 3 Vanguard list would have been an even worse match. Going second was also a huge blow, like you said. You have the tools to clog an objective with bodies, but not to get on to one. You did make an error since you can't take both Raise the Banners High and Investigate Sites because they're the same category.
Strategically, your best hope is to feed an infantry squad to the grinder each turn to keep your opponent from holding 3. That makes the game score 20-20, though realistically your opponent will control more once for 20-30. He's going to score 15 for Titan Slayer and about 10 for Investigate Sites, and 10 for another secondary. For you, I'd expect 10 or less for Raise Banners, at least 10 for Bring It Down, and maybe 6 points for Investigate Sites if you're lucky. So I'd estimate 45-55 in his favour, in the best case. I imagine you got the last 5 points for Bring It Down/Investigate and your opponent held more twice for 10 more points, which brings your scores to 50-65.
For this match-up, since can't hold more, I'd focus on killing. I'd go straight for Thin Their Ranks and Bring It Down. I'd actually take the GT exclusive Deploy Scramblers rather than Raise the Banners for Shadow Operations, since your opponent can't mess with it. You can reserve one infantry squad and deploy them in your opponent's deployment zone on turn 3 to score it. Otherwise, tactically, the name of the game 'deny his points'. You'll also prevent him from scoring Investigate Sites each time you contest the primary.
Optimistically, you can keep the primaries at 20-20 which necessarily also means he scores 0 for Investigate. He'd score 15 for Titan Slayer and ~10 for whatever other secondary. You'll score 10 for Scramblers, so you have Thin Their Ranks and Bring It Down to score 16-30 points to make up any differences for the win. It's not impossible, but it is one hell of an uphill battle. I think 60 infantry is a huge boon, and gives you options for contesting objectives. You just need more assault and anti-tank elements. Like I said, a Gallant and a lot of Lascannons.
Not sure why the photo didn’t upload, I tried again and it’s still not doing it. Weird.
Ah whoops, I’ve just seen the banners one is on the same bit as investigate sites. That’s what I get for saving images on my phone. It will be easier once I have the physical copy in my hands
As for thin their ranks, I actually never realised the change. With all his 10+ dreads I could of scored a lot of points there. You are spot on. That was a missed opportunity. I did max out bring it down though.
I’ll get back to tweaking on battlescribe
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and my opponent chose deploy scramblers and he scored the final bit turn 5.
Despite the loss is wasn’t so disheartening cause there was a lot that I could of done different in the game and in the selections before hand/deployment
Yeah, my pleasure. I think practicing evaluating secondaries in abstract is going to be a useful skill in 9th so you can form concrete pre-game plans. I'll have to think about how my projected 2k pt army would handle that match-up too.
If your opponent took Scramblers and Investigate, then they also made a mistake since those are the same category too.
Not to monopolize the thread, I did another game with an iteration of my list and got some interesting anecdotes. I had felt like the Preceptor wasn't quite doing enough. It was very rarely buffing the Warglaives after their first shooting turn and made for awkward positioning. It also stood out as a reliably available target for any anti-tank weapons on the field. I think you need at least two Knights plus allies or Warglaives. I also felt inspired by the Guardsman spam and wanted some more infantry to throw around on objectives.
We played Battle Lines from the GT book. Since he doesn't have bodies to spare for actions, his secondaries were Bring It Down, Engage on All Fronts, and the mission-specific Vital Ground. His plan was to fight me on both middle objectives to score 4 for Vital Ground and 3 for Engage on All Fronts per turn. I took Vital Ground as well, but also Line Breaker and Deploy Scramblers. My plan was to push one side of the board and into his deployment for 5 points on Vital Ground and 4 points on Linebreaker.
He deployed fairly evenly across his zone, but held his Eradicators to deploy last. I reserved one Warglaive, since there wouldn't be enough cover to hide them all. I deployed my Dunecrawlers and HQs together near the middle of my deployment and delayed revealing my plan to put all 3 Warglaives on one flank. He deployed his Eradicators centrally to split the difference, but this meant he wouldn't have great LoS going into turn 1. All my 3 Warglaives and most of my infantry went on my right flank.
I lost the roll-off and went second and immediately felt the difference of not having the Knight. He pushed everything forward, and only one of his Eradicators could get LoS to my Warglaive, the other had to settle for a Dunecrawler. If I had a Knight, it would have eaten both of them and bled wounds. His total shooting put 9 wounds on both the Dunecrawler and the Warglaive, despite Rotate Ion Shields. He advanced an Intercessor squad on to each objective, with the Aggressors, Dreadnoughts, and characters pushing across the center toward my right flank. The Aggressors shot and killed 4 Ruststalkers, which were in cover towards the middle of my deployment.
In response, I double-repaired the Dunecrawler and used Daedalosus to restore 8 wounds, while the Warglaive repaired itself back to its middle bracket. Daedalosus marked one of the Dreads for death by Dunecrawlers, which had re-roll 1s Canticle and Magos exploding 6s; they barely managed to get the last couple wounds on to kill it. The Warglaives killed a couple Eradicators and managed to get 2 charges into the Aggressors in the midfield, I think the total distance was ~22" and I used command re-roll and Pack Hunters. Pack Tactics just barely got Warglaives to kill all 5. Two squads of Vanguard also advanced and killed 3 of the Intercessors to take the right objective.
I'll save you the turn-by-turn description. Going into turn 2, he vaporized those two Warglaives. The Dreadnought and 4 characters got into a giant brawl on the right objective with the Ruststalkers, 2 Warglaives and a squad of Vanguard. It was a bloodbath that I eventually lost. The two other Vanguard squads ran off into his deployment zone to score Linebreaker/Scramblers. He was expecting my Dunecrawlers to duel his Eradicators, but instead they killed the 5 Intercessors on the left objective. I was threatening to capture his home objective with my Vanguard, and the Eradicators were closer to that objective. So he moved back to reinforce it to try to deny me Vital Ground, rather than try to peel 2 Dunecrawlers and 2 characters off an objective with 3 Eradicators. It worked, I never did get on his home objective.
The primary score ended up 40-35 and 8-6 for Vital Ground. At the start of turn 3, he had just lost the left objective and was only holding home for 5 points. At the start of my turn 3, my Dunecrawlers were already on the left objective, but his melee had contested my right objective so I scored 10 instead of 15. He scored 15 on Bring It Down, and 10 on Engage on All Fronts. I scored 10 for Scramblers, and 12 for Linebreaker. That gave me the win with 80 to 76.
My lesson from that game was I would absolutely not have won with my last list. My Knight would have been dead by turn 2 and I wouldn't have been able to stop it. Instead, I was able to rotate the smaller vehicles out of LoS and conserve them. Plus, due to list construction, I wouldn't have had enough Vanguard squads to both ObSec the right objective for a turn and flee into his deployment zone. My opponent also really felt the pain of not having enough discrete units to control the board, especially after he lost the left objective. I definitely regret reserving the Warglaive. I'd have rather deployed him further away and unable to charge, but at least able to shoot turn 1.
Aaa so leaked dynasty codes. I would be vary of using those as a) they include stuff we have no idea how they work b) we have no idea whatsoever what OTHER changes come. Did he also use say 2++ lychguard or wraiths? That might and odds are good will be going away in return so no 2++ obsec wraiths...
He’s a good friend and yeah he asked if I’d let him try some leaked rules
Yes we don’t have the complete picture and we probably played it wrong but....it’s necrons and he feels the same way about playing knights as I do playing tau
I can’t remember the last time I lost a game to necrons If I’m honest. His list yesterday wasn’t strong but he’s previously played various necron cookie cutters builds and they all falter.
So that’s something - we might not be great for 9th versus strong armies but at least we still $hit on necrons so far....till the full codex anyway hehe
Im aware I’m a chatty so and so just now but competed two games today so thought I would share
Game 1
Castellan
Crusader
Warden
Warden
3 ironstorm missiles
Game 2
Gallant
Warden
Crusader
And a space wolves patrol
Ragnar
30 intercessors
2 impulsors
I played against eldar. Won both.
My take aways are space wolves obsec is busted strong, impulsors need a points hike, pure knights is super chill but is Rock Paper Scissors. Either you win strong or get crushed on primaries.
I had two games this morning with a very different AdMech/Knights list. Ideasweasel saw in the AdMech thread, but I thought I'd post it here too. One of those games was my first 100 VP game no less.
Spoiler:
Psalimit Outriders 1495
Super Heavy Detachment, House Husak, Glorified History, Noble Combatants
4 Warglaives, 4 Stubbers, [Warlord: Landstrider; Sanctuary]
620
I can talk in more detail about the games if you'd like. It floods your opponent with T7 3+/5++, and everything regenerates a wound per turn. The Raiders are cheap wounds that help board control and screen against charges. The real stars are the Fusilaves. These things utterly shred light infantry, which can be a sore spot for Knights if they can't stomp them. Since Dunecrawlers are mostly Helverins but cheaper, I could see this package being a strong addition to a Knight list:
That leaves plenty of room for stompy Knights. You could fit a couple of them and an Armiger in 1500 points, or you can bring more AdMech artillery. I'm of the mind that more individual units is better, hence my version with max Armigers and Dunecrawlers.
grouchoben wrote: You mean 15 intercessors? Otherwise you're 300pts over. I really like that SW patrol list, it's almost exactly what I play! (Castigator <3 )
15 yeah. I got that wrong. I plagiarised your list idea to give it a whirl. It’s pretty strong with the obsec.
@darkhound Armiger spam does seem to be stronger. I’m just so stubbornly attached to the 3x questoris model. Really hard for me to shift that mindset haha
Yeah my pure knight's lists are revolving around 4-7 armigers with between 2-3 larger knights but generally relying on making 1 tanky as possible and outflanking/reserving the other.
This need to rely on armiger is definitely the worst news about 9th... And just after I finished my Household!
Jokes aside, someone tried a Quaestoris with Objective Secured? Or the wording on the rules (at least 1 ObSec AND more bodies... Even without ObSec) maketh that useless too?
I played Castellan, warden, warden, crusader 3x Ironstorm missile pods.
Absolutely crushed my opponent but I managed to delete his anti tank and his list wasn’t super competitive.
Castellan may get hamstrung by terrain and being a giant target to get nuked down. It also wants to hang back and shoot. I think 9th wants more of a push up in the middle playstyle.
Further testing is needed but it’s fun bringing it out now and then
Just because a Castellan has range doesn't mean he wants to hang back. His stomp is still pretty damaging, he has 4 meltaguns you would be wasting otherwise and he can walk out of most combats anyway.
You probably don't want him leading the charge, but there is no real need to hang him back.
Hehe reminds me of when codex comes up and I was arquing that point when people were comparing it and valiant.
"Castellan is wasting those meltaguns. Valiant gets to use".
And I'm "why not move forward as well with valiant? Ability to shoot from distance doesn't mean you have to. Valiant main guns have no minimum range".
Planning to dust off my knights again. How essential the PA book is for them?
Thinking of krast with 2 helveirns, 2 warglaives, crusader, gallant and warden each with relic and warlord trait. Now need to find my models and fix the one that got broken last time I fielded knight alongside sisters.
Another change I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is that the Banner Relic that grants Objective Secured now counts the Knight as 10 models like the Chaos Knight's version does. That allows us to at least toe into holding an objective.
I still think that some allies are needed to make Knights work though.
That’s not a change as far as I know. It’s always counted the knight as 10 models unless there was some FAQ I missed.
But yes, I think we need allies for more bodies if nothing else. I’ve been adding an Admech patrol with an engineseer, 2x5 vanguard and 2x10 Hoplites to my lists, but haven’t got to play yet and see how they do.
Bad news is it looks like Thunder hammers are now D4 flat base so Knight's durability is looking ever sketcher and they weren't durable for most of 8th.
Ice_can wrote: Bad news is it looks like Thunder hammers are now D4 flat base so Knight's durability is looking ever sketcher and they weren't durable for most of 8th.
Where are these leaks ? And they are for what upcoming release ? Space marine codex?
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW, can I check something? Are we allowed to play 1 knight and 8 amigers? or are we limited to 6 because of the rule of 3. In that same vein, does this mean we can't play 5 gallants also because of the rule of three ? (Theoratically, 200 points can squeeze in 5 bare bones gallants).
well done 
yeah not an edition balanced around elite infantry to the exclusion of balance for everyone else.
but onwards for honor and glory.
it's like they actually belive it's playable. 
