Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On many threads it has been discussed how lances are less usefull than the ensorcelled weapons, but i noticed something else that is odd.
The army book entry says that the ensorcelled weapons are upgraded, as in replaced by the lances, so now the knights gear that was previosuly, barded horse, chaos armor and ensorcelled weapon is now barded horse, chaos armor and lance.
I can't help but notice the lack of a hand weapon in that setup that would mean the knoght is unable to attack after the first round of combat due to having nothing to switch to after using the lance.
What do you guys think?

All models have hand weapons.

All models are assumed to have handweapons.

As above, but I still can't see the sense in giving up a Str5 every round for Str6 in the first, when chaos knights rarely can break a unit in a single round of combat, and then paying 5 points for it. Maybe in a REALLY big unit, I don't know.

The real mindblower for me is that you pay 5 points for lances. There's some serious cost benefit analysis going on already if you're considering lances, but having to slap more points on is a deal breaker.

- Salvage

In combat after the 1st round it is assumed the riders use the butt of the lance to strike. Which has the same effect as a hand weapon.

Quite a few units don't say the have hand weapons. The BRB says all models count as having hand weapons.

You really shouldn't have to pay to loose the enscrolled weapons, but it isn't too horrible to take lances.


In a marauder based core army, knights with lances isn't bad.
Against other horde units, the marauders typically win combat.
Against elite units, the marauders hold them up for knight to go into the flank.

Also, should you need to monster hunt (which cav is good at), the lances make the difference.

Against T4 enemies (saurus, orcs, dwarves, chaos warriors), the lance can make the difference between winning and losing combat.

Looking at Lance vs Enscrolled on paper is always a loss for the lance; but when you look at how you're going to use the unit in your army, you can find room for lances. Besides, knight units are usually small, so 25 points in a 2K-2.5K army is ~1% waste. I can live with that. Besides, the models look cool with lances.


-Matt

Boss Salvage wrote:The real mindblower for me is that you pay 5 points for lances. There's some serious cost benefit analysis going on already if you're considering lances, but having to slap more points on is a deal breaker.

- Salvage

+1 on this one...

Lances+Banner of Eternal Flame=Crying Hydras/HPAs, but that's the only reason I'd ever even consider lances on my knights.

Tzeentchling9 wrote:Lances+Banner of Eternal Flame=Crying Hydras/HPAs, but that's the only reason I'd ever even consider lances on my knights.

Bingo, beat me to it. Flaming lances pop those monstrous boils nicely

- Salvage

Eh, I don't know about that. 16% per hit better chance to wound isn't super exciting on the small amount of attacks a knight unit puts out. I am personally favoring warriors with flaming halberds as more attacks seems to be more efficient and more difficult to neutralize point per point. Of course, you do lack the mobility of knights.

Well, its the ability to get flaming. Ensorcelled can't get flaming attacks.

Even with the flaming, you'd have to kill 2 Hydra's to get your cost out of it. The Knight unit is already more expensive than a Hydra. Toss on the lances and the banner, and you are spending alot of points on something that, for all intents and purposes, doesn't need it other than killing the Hydra.

I mean, if you are tailoring your list to fight someone who fields a bunch of em, or you just want to toy around with the fluff, sure. In an all comers list, I take the Ensorcelled weapons all the time. I'd rather have S5 for the 2nd round of combat than S4. With so many hordes, its just better to make sure you maximize the overall killing potential of the knights. That is just me however, and others will play in a manner best suited to their style.

Killjoy: I was referring to the warriors' halberds, which blaze up just fine If you really expect to need mobility to kill the hydras and hpa (which you might, I don't know) then knights are probably needed, but I just think that warriors will do, since you won't likely need to chase down the monsters; they are coming right at you

Lehnsherr wrote:Even with the flaming, you'd have to kill 2 Hydra's to get your cost out of it.

Any points comparison vs the hydra makes me chortle out great tremors of static-ridden bass from my sarcophagus's vox-casters. If you're comparing 265 points of hydra-killing knights to a hydra, you should keep in mind that the hydra should cost an easy 250 points, if not more. Or you could do it this way: take the hydra's 150 (!!) and then add in all of the points of your army that it's going to devour, or perhaps all the points that you aren't going to kill of the enemy as the hydra soaks up your magic or hellcannon fire.

Also, 10 WS5 S6 attaks (+ 5 WS3 S4) kill plenty of other things after they've cauterized the hydra(s)'s faces shut.

- Salvage

+1 savage.

Unless you wipe your enemy every game while taking no losses, you always have units that don't kill their own value. If the knights survive, or hit a 2nd unit, you're well ahead in points; more so when you count what the hydra didn't stomp all over.

-Matt

175 points. 250 would be too many - 225ish is about right.

Alternately, you have a more efficient points/attack/wound unit of warriors with Halberds and a flaming banner that is good against pretty much everything, not just two monsters from two army books (or of course add in trolls for 3 monsters from 3 books.) That's all I am saying

What worries me with the knights as well is that you need 5 wounds to kill the Hydra. You have 10 str 6 (11 with champ) attacks, and 5 str 4. Roughly that's 33% that MUST hit and wound, which is a little dicey. Fluff a few 3+ to hit, or 3+ to wound, and your knights may well get eaten, though fortunately the Hydra goes after every attack, though the handlers might get lucky. The HPA is even worse, as you need 1 more wound. Not impossible, and the knights do get the benefit of no thunderstomp, but warriors have more attacks to sneak through.

Hence MoK....? That helps immensely!

Wehrkind wrote:Alternately, you have a more efficient points/attack/wound unit of warriors with Halberds and a flaming banner that is good against pretty much everything, not just two monsters from two army books (or of course add in trolls for 3 monsters from 3 books.) That's all I am saying

What worries me with the knights as well is that you need 5 wounds to kill the Hydra. You have 10 str 6 (11 with champ) attacks, and 5 str 4. Roughly that's 33% that MUST hit and wound, which is a little dicey. Fluff a few 3+ to hit, or 3+ to wound, and your knights may well get eaten, though fortunately the Hydra goes after every attack, though the handlers might get lucky. The HPA is even worse, as you need 1 more wound. Not impossible, and the knights do get the benefit of no thunderstomp, but warriors have more attacks to sneak through.

Actually the knights won't get eaten. 7 S5 attacks with hate, and 6 S3 attacks with hate and armor piercing averages slightly more than 1 knight dead. Then add in the breathe (because the hydra is desperate, and as long as you did 1 wound; you're still averaging less than 2 losses. With the banner and musician, you're going to be winning combat. It would take some fairly bad rolling to lose the knights; and that type of rolling is going to doom any unbreakable unit.

A 1+ armor save save is still really good in 8th edition. S5 doesn't get the job done.

-Matt

Good points there, the main danger probably isn't from the hydra itself then, just the supporting units that can shoot/cast, and knights are not terribly more vulnerable against those too (except for lore of metal, but that is scary to ALL WoC lads save marauders ) I would be interested in seeing a few battle reports with that match up to see how they fare.

Also, 10 WS5 S6 attaks (+ 5 WS3 S4) kill plenty of other things after they've cauterized the hydra(s)'s faces shut.

This is true. As is most of your post. Personally, I'd use the banner of flame on a block of warriors with halberds and let them shore up the flank where the hydra is located. I'd want my knights focusing on the rather weak elves, pounding them into dust before magic ate them up.

Its personal preference, but I think we are all in agreement that the banner of flame is a necessity in most lists.

Wehrkind wrote:Good points there, the main danger probably isn't from the hydra itself then, just the supporting units that can shoot/cast, and knights are not terribly more vulnerable against those too (except for lore of metal, but that is scary to ALL WoC lads save marauders ) I would be interested in seeing a few battle reports with that match up to see how they fare.

Funny you mention shooting. Take a look at S3 armor piercing, and S4 shooting. Point for point, knights are more durable that chaos warriors.

Personally, I'd use the banner of flame on a block of warriors with halberds and let them shore up the flank where the hydra is located. I'd want my knights focusing on the rather weak elves, pounding them into dust before magic ate them up.

The problem I have is when you don't know where the hydra is going (which flank). The warriors aren't quick enough to redeploy.
On the other hand, you can deploy knights in the center rear, and rapidly move to whatever flank you need to be on.

Also, in that rear placement, you get hard cover from the marauders in front of you. And IMO, unless you are running marauders mobs are your core, don't bother with knights. Knights compliment marauders extremely well... not so much with the chaos warriors.

I totally see the value of the cheaper enscrolled knights; it just that in the right build, lance knights can work. Even if you don't "need" that extra +1 strength (to go from ~4 dead dwarves to 6); 5 points a model in a unit of 5 or 6 isn't going to break the bank. Of course, now that I've said that, I'm sure I'll lose my next game by 25 points.

-Matt

Very good points all. Makes me glad I am running a marauder horde with knights and a moderate unit of warriors too!

I had thought about the flank issue with warriors, and had figured on running them as the center of the line, with the marauders back a little to protect flanks and and rear and not be in their way, with the warriors as the armored spearhead and knights/marauder horse as the flanking elements. Since I am running a warshrine too a nice buff on the warriors makes them extra special (whether stat or short bus wise is up to the dice gods, however). I figure if the hydras run to one flank the warriors can break off to deal with them while the marauders move up to reform the line. If two hydras, well, one marauder block gets to take one for the team while the warriors deal with the other

The problem I have is when you don't know where the hydra is going (which flank). The warriors aren't quick enough to redeploy

True. Your opponent also does not know which unit has the banner of flame, and you could easily save that unit until the end for deployment as well. We are getting into serious meta game thinking though, as modifying your potential deployment based off an opposing armies potential deployment goes beyond the basics. However, putting the banner of flame on your knights still seems like a tactic designed to take out ONLY dark elves, whereas the banner on your warriors is more useful for an all comers list, leaving your knights as deadly as possible.

If you are going into the game knowing your opponent has 2 hydras, then by all means go ahead with the banner on your knights, it would make the most sense. For a tournament setting where you aren't even sure you will be coming up against a Hydra, I would put the banner on my halberd warriors. Of course, if you know your opponent is bringing 2 hydras, then your opponent might know you are bringing a banner of flame. If your opponent knows you have the banner of flame on your knights, you can expect that unit to be taking everything in the first turn. 5 knights are durable, but enough first round fire can put a serious damper on your strategy. Knights on their own, without the banner, are still as much of a threat, and it forces your opponent to spread out damage rather than focus the knights down.

Really this type of discussion belongs in the tactics section, lol, but it is interesting none the less.

I disagree slightly. I don't see the banner of flame being that much better on the warriors.

The three reasons to take knights of flame are hydra, HPA and treemen. All 3 can probably steer clear of your slow-ass warriors if you give it to them.

So yes, its a "meta" decision, but the decision to take the flaming banner AT ALL is a bit of a meta decision already...