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.

It's 'designed' for anti-vehicle. The question in the title is rhetorical. But, it seems odd to me that FW would give a knight a chainfist (which looks rad, btw) and a flamer, which on any other unit would be more of a handicap, on account of only being able to do one thing at a time and having the ability to do either or at half capacity.

Thoughts? Also, the chainfist look should have been the standard.

 Powerfisting wrote:
But, it seems odd to me that FW would give a knight a chainfist (which looks rad, btw) and a flamer, which on any other unit would be more of a handicap, on account of only being able to do one thing at a time and having the ability to do either or at half capacity.

Well the Flamer is Ordnance (which helps a little), and the rules for open-topped vehicles will make Dark Eldar and Orks cringe if facing this variant, but I agree that it should definitely have had a special rule like the Siege Dreadnought:

Assault Drill wrote:The assault drill acts like a normal Dreadnought close combat weapon. If it is used to attack a bunker or building, then roll 2D6 for penetration and add the dice together. If the Dreadnought penetrates a bunker/pillbox/building it may immediately make a heavy flamer attack against anybody inside (troops on a different level or in a different section of a large building cannot be attacked). Anybody inside a bunker is hit automatically.

This being said, remember that it also has the Heavy Bolter so it can flame the hell out of a big squad, shoot the HB at a tank or building, then charge that building and wreck face.

DoW

 Powerfisting wrote:
It's 'designed' for anti-vehicle. The question in the title is rhetorical. But, it seems odd to me that FW would give a knight a chainfist (which looks rad, btw) and a flamer, which on any other unit would be more of a handicap, on account of only being able to do one thing at a time and having the ability to do either or at half capacity.

Thoughts? Also, the chainfist look should have been the standard.

you do know that super heavies can split fire right? So you flame an infantry squad, shoot the heavy bolter at a vehicle, and then you can charge the vehicle

DogOfWar wrote: Well the Flamer is Ordnance (which helps a little), and the rules for open-topped vehicles will make Dark Eldar and Orks cringe if facing this variant

To be fair, DE and Orks with AV10 - open topped cringe at possibly getting explodes! results from plain old bolter fire. I do find it silly that a week before the DE release the first (I think) hellstorm template gets introduced into standard 40k games

It is a fortification buster. The "flamer" is 16.5" x 5" template so it can target a building window, the troops in front, and the light armour behind all in one pass. It ignores cover and is ordnance so it has a decent chance to stip HP but the real point is that due to being a template weapon it does hits against the occupants of a building and the contents of any open topped vehicles.

The HB is useful to target a different target than the flamer (who you might wipe out) so that you can charge that target instead.

The chain fist ensures that no matter what fortification you go after you destroy it. It is also one of the nastiest weapons yet released to take down a super heavy. Charge a vehicle or tank and it will disintegrate.

I would say that this titan is pretty reasonably balanced but due to people not being familiar with tempest templates it will probably destroy a lot more of the opponent than it should.

Also, remember the flamer is Hellstorm, so it can cook more than one squad against any army that puts squads closer than 12" together. (I think the full length of the template is like 16"?)

It could also easily hit a vehicle, the people hiding behind it, and something else behind that too.

I agree the synergy might be somewhat questionable, but I think the flamer may be the scariest of the knight weapons so far.

I think its the heavy bolter that is out of place for me, splitting fire with the primary flamer and the secondary to obtain a secondary charge is fine, just that the heavy bolter isn't going to do squat against any sort of priority assault target for this Knight variant. I would rather they gave it at least something S6 if not S7 for the secondary.

 Looky Likey wrote:
I think its the heavy bolter that is out of place for me, splitting fire with the primary flamer and the secondary to obtain a secondary charge is fine, just that the heavy bolter isn't going to do squat against any sort of priority assault target for this Knight variant. I would rather they gave it at least something S6 if not S7 for the secondary.

except thats not really how the secondary weapons are designed. they're designed as light anti infantry weapons to support the heavy weapons, from an in universe point, not as a "target marker" the target marker aspect is mostly simply how we get around the sometimes akward way the rules work

The Imperial Knight secondary weapons are actually anti infantry weapons to shoot people trying to board the knight and kill the pilot.

The weapon synergy is in assaulting fortifications not vehicles. Against fortifications you flame the contents keeping the occupants from being able to effectively harm the knight and then when you get closer you open the fortification up.Alternatively you can remove an infantry screen that would protect tanks and then charge the tanks. Remember with a 16.5" length template even if you target a vehicle you will be hitting pretty much the entire unit infront of it. You can very easily remove the entire blobb squad component that would block your charge. With this knight screening infantry is a joke. Every other knight they buy you an extra turn.

well... this kills pretty much anything,

open topped vehicles will die, so will their contents...

every other vehicle will die...

think about it,

str D, rerolling 1's... thats pretty good against other titans when fishing for 6's or simply trying to get 6hp dowm


so its better in CC then everything but the lancer against other super heavies, also has more damage potential then the battle cannon knight as there is 0 scatter and 0 cover against the main gun.

35 pts to go from paladin to this? awesome, just awesome

I know what secondary weapons are meant to be for, but I also know what it'll be used for on this Knight in metas that do not have a lot of fortifications.

It's about 15-25 points too expensive, should be between 390-400 points for what you get. If it was a but cheaper, it'd be a contender with the Castigator for anti-light material, and therefore a good choice between play style and roll. At 415pts, its easier to field a Castigator for the same role, or even an Errant for even cheaper.

As a contender for the role if "Baron", the Lancer, Castigator, and Acheron are all good fits as "command" units "leading" a Household of Knights. Shelve the Magaera, its garbage.

SJ

I don't know man, are we really splitting hairs over 15 to 25 points on a 400 point model? Does that make or break it?

If you want a giant flamer, he is your man. Still wrecks in CC and can use the bolter to target something other than the flamer to giver you assault options.

My question is, it's labeled as a LoW

But you can field it in your detachment if the regular Knights outnumbered the FW nights.

If I use an allied detachment of Knights and have one of these in it, does it then use up my LoW slot too?

Johnnytorrance wrote:
My question is, it's labeled as a LoW

But you can field it in your detachment if the regular Knights outnumbered the FW nights.

If I use an allied detachment of Knights and have one of these in it, does it then use up my LoW slot too?

No, because its in the Knight detachment.

SJ