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.

General SM army question, leaning on the competitive / friendly side of the game.

I'm going to run a White Scars / UM successor army.

Willing to take other recommendations as well

I'd say the Sicaran. Most people know how to counter 1 IK now. Few people expect to see a Sicaran, and then they don't target them.

What is this choice being based on? Price, points, general usefulness? What else in your army etc?
I like the sicaran though :-)

It's an odd question. The Knight and Sicaran serve completely different functions. Is it a matter of "I have X amount of points I need to fill" or is it "I have X amount of dollars I'd like to spend"?

I think it comes down to what your army is like, so I have to imagine a typical White Scars army with bikes, speeders, and scouts.

Fluffy me, I'd go Sicaran. Its a relatively swift tank that can take out most 40k tanks but can do decently well against aircraft too. It keeps the emphasis of the army "marines" while giving you a vehicle that both supplements and fits in with the swift striking army that White Scars tend to be.

I love Knights, but I don't really like how they are just dropped into every other Imperial army. I don't think they fit. That's my bias. IF you were insistent with going with a Knight... I think the Cerastus Knight Lancer has a character that would go along well with White Scars, with the that whole hunter mentality. However given a typical White Scars army I think a Knight Crusader would bring some nice raw firepower.

They can both keep up with Bikes, but unless you're in desperate need for some AP3, the vanilla Knights aren't giving you anything that a Command Squad can't other than the Str D melee. Meanwhile the Sicaran has the friggin amazing option to ignore Jinks, get Skyfire for a turn with a Legacy. It's a great bonus to have in an army, for not a lot of points.

Downside to the Sicaran is that most places, no places in my experience, will allow it in the Decurion styles. So Gladius and whatever that White Scar one is called, and those have some decent bonuses. You'd be forced to take a CAD as well.

Sadly I'm not familiar with Forge World Knights since I was never a fan of Knights to begin with and they're outside my comfortable price range. They'll never be on my list of things to consider anyway.

Can you get the Cerastus Knight Atropos?

2nd runner up is Cerastus Knight Castigator.

If the enemy can kill a IK then they can kill a sicaran.

In an era where wave serpents get an invul save fromtheir shield, do you really need a gun that ignores jink?

Do you need anti air? couldn't you just take storm talons?

 Filch wrote:
Can you get the Cerastus Knight Atropos?

2nd runner up is Cerastus Knight Castigator.

If the enemy can kill a IK then they can kill a sicaran.

In an era where wave serpents get an invul save fromtheir shield, do you really need a gun that ignores jink?

Do you need anti air? couldn't you just take storm talons?

I could possibly get Cerastus Knight Atropas, what makes him good?

( I happen to have extra cash cause of my Holiday bonus so thats why this thread is here )

simplycj wrote:


I could possibly get Cerastus Knight Atropas, what makes him good?

( I happen to have extra cash cause of my Holiday bonus so thats why this thread is here )

See for yourself. He's pretty nifty and fast

yup atropas is my fav knight, too bad i cant get it because it is so expensive but i have dreams of it under my iron warrior heraldry

I have an atrapos, certainly a fantastic knight!

Okay, maybe I'm not used to Knights, but what makes that thing good? I'm not seeing the tactical uses against anything but other Superheavies, Land Raiders or MCs... What are the usual targets for it? Or did I just hit the nail on the head and I'm just not taking into account the full strength of hitting those targets?

Knights are ridiculous in Melee against infantry because of stomp.

Sicaran. Always go Sicaran. There is no choice. It is a bad tank! Looks great on the table, performs well, and again, bad tank!

You should go with the Atrapos. Seriously, its a Knight with a D strength lightsaber and a cannon that fires black holes, and can be a LoW in any IoM army. Why pass that up?

SJ

Because the Sicaran is cuter.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because the Sicaran is cuter.

Maybe, but the Jedi-pattern Imperial Knight is cooler.

SJ

The strength of the Atrapos is kind of hidden in the weapon special rules: The black hole cannon can be a 36" Vortex (that means Strength D!) on the roll of a 6. It has an ionic flare shield, making it considerably more resilient against shooting than a regular ion shield would, and the Black Hole Cannon has concussive if you really absolutely must kill that GC before it swings at you.

Also, the 8" range D weapon is cute, especially with Macro-Extinction Protocols and Ocular Augmetics.

Okay guys, thanks for all your help!

I'm completely left winging this towards Atrapos but before I hit purchase him I would like to clear something up about the rules for him in 40k

" Codex: Imperial Knights: A Cerastus Knight-Atrapos may be chosen as part of a Codex: IK army as you would other types of Knight. However, owing to their rarity in the 41" Millenium, you may not hjave more Cerastus Knight- Atrapos in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.

Does that mean I can't use him unless I have another Non-Forgeworld Imperial knight in my list?

What that means is you cannot use him in a Codex: IK army if you have no other kinds of knights. Basically, only 50% of your knights can be Atraposes, because you can never have more Atraposes than you have other Knights.

That restriction, however, -only- applies to Codex: IK armies.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What that means is you cannot use him in a Codex: IK army if you have no other kinds of knights. Basically, only 50% of your knights can be Atraposes, because you can never have more Atraposes than you have other Knights.

That restriction, however, -only- applies to Codex: IK armies.

Thanks for clearing that up for me!

I still say a Sicaran would be better. But it's your choice.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What that means is you cannot use him in a Codex: IK army if you have no other kinds of knights. Basically, only 50% of your knights can be Atraposes, because you can never have more Atraposes than you have other Knights.

That restriction, however, -only- applies to Codex: IK armies.

This begs the question, where does it state the FW knights can be taken in other armies? -I always assumed if you took it as a Lord of War it was an ally taken through the IK codex.

When I use knights, I usually either use them by themselves or with other things allied to them.

In the rules for them it says they may be taken as Lords of War in any "Armies of the Imperium" army. (This is distinct from a normal Knight, which is not a LOW for an army but rather an Oathsworn detachment).

bottom right corner of the rules, say that it can be taken as a lord of war slot for any army of the Imperium

The Atrapos seems to be a problem solver that bends some standard rules of 40k.

Shooting weapons are -1 str (-2 for blasts) to the side the shield is on. This can effectively make it an armor 14 knight. The Gun will rarely become a vortex weapon, but it is a str 8 armorbane shot at 36". Finally the lascutter is a beam shot which means it does not choose a target and can effect invisible units and Ghostkeels.

I think a Knight army has a better chance when the knights are diversified and these new FW Knights are diversifying the field quickly. Now all they need is a cover ignoring Knight and I think the stable would be complete.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
What that means is you cannot use him in a Codex: IK army if you have no other kinds of knights. Basically, only 50% of your knights can be Atraposes, because you can never have more Atraposes than you have other Knights.

That restriction, however, -only- applies to Codex: IK armies.

This begs the question, where does it state the FW knights can be taken in other armies? -I always assumed if you took it as a Lord of War it was an ally taken through the IK codex.

When I use knights, I usually either use them by themselves or with other things allied to them.

Regarding the rarity of the Knight Atrapos, the rule states "you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Atrapos in your army than you have Knights of other kinds". The important word here is "have". If it said "you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Atrapos in your army than there are Knights of other kinds" then you need knights of all other kinds in order to select an Atrapos. As it status than you have it means if you have none of any other kind you meet this condition.

Therefore an IK detachment can include 1 x Knight Atrapos on its own.

Wait, but isn't 1 more than 0, which means that if you "have" 0 Knights of other kinds than "having" 1 Atrapos means you "have" more Atraposes than you "have" knights of other kinds?

You could certainly read it that way. I think the way I read it is that rare knights just cant outnumber any other type of actual knight in your army. If you have none, the rule doesn't come into force.

This reading of the rule also makes the knight usable. Playing it the way you describe would require taking one of each type of knight before you could take an Atropos so you would always have to take a Warden, Paladin, Crusader, Errant and so forth. It's hard to imagine that is what Forgeworld intended.

If you use my reading it just stops a player from taking more Atrapos knights than the more common knight varieties.

DarthDiggler wrote:
The Atrapos seems to be a problem solver that bends some standard rules of 40k.

Shooting weapons are -1 str (-2 for blasts) to the side the shield is on. This can effectively make it an armor 14 knight. The Gun will rarely become a vortex weapon, but it is a str 8 armorbane shot at 36". Finally the lascutter is a beam shot which means it does not choose a target and can effect invisible units and Ghostkeels.

I think a Knight army has a better chance when the knights are diversified and these new FW Knights are diversifying the field quickly. Now all they need is a cover ignoring Knight and I think the stable would be complete.

The Acheron has an ap3 hellfire template. If you've seen a hellfire template, that is a lot of template.