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.

 Kirasu wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

With other Apocalypse units around, sure, but as a Lord Of War (heaven forbid its in the regular Force Org for anything) this is a bit more expensive than a tooled up Daemon Prince or GD, and excluding favourable psychic power rolls, can probably take them out in one round.

Okay I'll agree here, IT is better than an awful CSM demon prince with way too many upgrades :p

Yeah, cause flying, mastery 3 Tzeentch princes with armour are simply awful

I'm glad we agree that a 350 points T5 model with 4 wounds are awful!

Just to be clear, this sort of response isn't going to get any further rise out of me, despite the fact that from this side of my screen that appears to be what you're after. It is adding nothing to the discussion, and while you might be amusing yourself, or even think you're actually being witty, all you're doing is undermining any serious contributions you may make.

And for the record, I was referring to the CD DPs not CSM.

Now, back OT

Do the stubbers mean that it can effectively 'mark' one unit to assault, and fire it's main gun at another target, allowing it to try and spread it's damage output around more effectively?

 insaniak wrote:
The thing is, even if they write them solidly into the rules, people will not allow them in games if they feel unbalanced.

There are still people out there who question the use of Special Characters, despite them only actuallyy requiring your opponent's permission for a relatively brief period (and even then permission not being required for all of them) due to so many players just refusing to play against them in 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition.


Shoehorning Apocalypse into regular games won't get people to accept superheavies. Writing rules that people perceive as allowing the use of superheavies without requiring armies to be specifically tailored to realistically go up against them is what will do that.

The bolded will never happen. It's irrelevant anyway, since you can make lists with no super-heavies that can't be really beat by 99% of the armies out there unless you specifically tailor against them, and you always could. 40K is not balanced, and it never has been, and the strongest lists can go on outrageous win streaks of 50 games or so purely on auto-pilot.

I thought fortifications and allies were a completely ridiculous idea in 40K, and still do, and I know a lot of people who felt/feel the same way, but yet mono-codex armies have gone the way of the dodo and double and triple codex armies are the standard these days and all of them come with a couple of buildings sprinkled on top. If super-heavies go into the core rules, they'll become an integral part of the game, whether 'those guys who still don't allow special characters' writing angry comments from their murky basements like it or not.

 azreal13 wrote:

Do the stubbers mean that it can effectively 'mark' one unit to assault, and fire it's main gun at another target, allowing it to try and spread it's damage output around more effectively?

If it is a super heavy, that means it can fire at separate targets and elect to assault any one of them. I don't see any reason why not.

I can't believe that reasonable adults, whether in fun-fun fluffy games or in tournament 40k or anything in between, will ever allow D weapons in regular games, without extensive tailoring on both player's parts. I'm glad rules exist to allow it, but until the D is changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

 tomjoad wrote:
I can't believe that reasonable adults, whether in fun-fun fluffy games or in tournament 40k or anything in between, will ever allow D weapons in regular games, without extensive tailoring on both player's parts. I'm glad rules exist to allow it, but until the D is changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

I have less of a problem with D melee weapons, as there is a lot more that can be done to mitigate them, but basically this.

 tomjoad wrote:
I can't believe that reasonable adults, whether in fun-fun fluffy games or in tournament 40k or anything in between, will ever allow D weapons in regular games, without extensive tailoring on both player's parts. I'm glad rules exist to allow it, but until the D is changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

Keep fighting the good fight. If people like you existed a couple years back, maybe we wouldn't have to deal with Seer Councils that are only made viable by Baron and Grislies, and TauDar, Eldau, Taucrons, Chaoscrons, etc in general on a regular basis. No reasonable adult would ever allow armies to remove their few codex-designed weaknesses by just taking allies (from multiple codices if need be) to fill in the blanks with a few void shields sprinkled on top. I'm glad rules exist to allow allies for fluffy narratives, campaigns and team games, but untill the allies are changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

To me strength D is no more ridiculous than all the other ridiculous crap in the game already, and personally I think there's more variation to strength D (there's a ton of units that can have it) than there is to watching unkillable Seer Councils and Screamerstars wreck face. Strength D removes every death star unit from the face of 40K, and I support any change that brings that about.

If it is a super heavy walker with a strength d weapon and an obscene points cost I might have to house rule it to make It more fun for buth myself and my opponents, use the riptide and wraith knight as a template and write from there.

For 375 with the shooting it's got and the ability to set your shield (read 4++) after your opponent moves and it's CC ability I think it's actually in the right range price wise. That said I'm extremely sad it's a Lord of War, has a D-Weapon, and isn't an MC.

 Hulksmash wrote:
For 375 with the shooting it's got and the ability to set your shield (read 4++) after your opponent moves and it's CC ability I think it's actually in the right range price wise. That said I'm extremely said it's a Lord of War, has a D-Weapon, and isn't an MC.

I'm going to speculate that we haven't seen all the options either.

If I read things correctly, the WD didn't include the complete rules for all the dwarf units, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more options available, either in the kit, or in the pipeline as upgrades from FW.

That likely won't make them non-LoW or a MC of course, but it might provide some non-D weapons and some other more interesting loadouts

They'll appear on the FW HH books. Those books reference Knight super-heavy walkers directly when talking about various bits of wargear in there. They'll get an entry in the next few books, including more options and then (no doubt) a few conversion kits to make older HH-era patterns.

 Gallahad wrote:
Ha! Who is copying who now? This looks to be a blatant attempt to capture some of Dreamforge's current lockdown on big stompy gothic robots.

Uh.... yeah. Given that GW's knights have been around since the 80's, this isn't GW copying anyone.

Just what we needed: more imperial rules!

 Gallahad wrote:
Ha! Who is copying who now? This looks to be a blatant attempt to capture some of Dreamforge's current lockdown on big stompy gothic robots.

While I don't care for any big stompy gothic robots, I hope Mark crushes them in the marketplace. There is no way they come out priced less than Mark's 15mm leviathians, and there is a pretty good chance they can't compete on quality/poseability/modularity either.

You need to go back and look at Epic over 20 years ago.

 insaniak wrote:

 Gallahad wrote:
Ha! Who is copying who now? This looks to be a blatant attempt to capture some of Dreamforge's current lockdown on big stompy gothic robots.

Uh.... yeah. Given that GW's knights have been around since the 80's, this isn't GW copying anyone.

Except maybe Robot Jox and Battletech, but hey...who didn't

Big robots are cool.

The diversity of Knights really leaves a lot to be expanded upon by GW or FW in 40k. Originally there were lancers, warden, and paladin knights. That was expanded to much different lancers, castellan and crusaders, paladins and errants, and Barons. Seeing them do those would make me giddy.

I suspect it'll be with these other variants FW will let their imagination run wild. I can imagine the wardens, castellan, crusader, and castellan's weapon load outs will make people happier about their superheavy status.

If these end up superheavy I just think we'll end up seeing FW make something new Dreadknight or Decimator in sized that fights alongside these.

Disappointed it's not just something that can be played in a regular game. Goes from a "buy" to a "don't buy" for me.

I've just looked at Naftka, and even he doesn't believe his source on this one...I feel dumb for talking about such an unlikely report for so long.

 Blacksails wrote:
Well that and maybe a better gun option. Heavy stubbers, seriously?

Well they were originally armed with Heavy Bolters. I don't really seee how better equipment options would really make much of a difference.

I thought that Knighs only had a single pilot?

Knights are not Titans just getting that out of the way
For the masses complaining Oh joy another "D" weapon it is a CC weapon that can only be used on large objects buildings any thing MC and above and vehicles with HP all other get a stomp attack.

 sonofruss wrote:
Knights are not Titans

That depends on your defination of Titan

 Palindrome wrote:

 sonofruss wrote:
Knights are not Titans

That depends on your defination of Titan

While they are titanesque they are not titans, (unless gw decide to change that). It's been categorically stated a few times in various fluff pieces. What do you reckon of the chances of forgeworld doing a caban engine now that we have these guys?

Even the FW HH books refer to them as super-heavy walkers and not Titans.

Well, time to cancel that pre-order with the FLGS I suppose, no use in having more than one big stompy Knight now.

So I missed a couple of pages while OI was at work, just read over the rules that were posted like 2 posts after my last one and NOPE.

This will most certainly not be the thing to bring me back to 40k. Not even close. I do NOT want lords of war BS in my 40k thank you very much.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It's like the Macharius - over 100 points more than something that has better armour, better weapons and can transport troops.

About par for the course with modern GW. They're so blinded by their own blithering incompetence they have the rules writing acumen of a 12-year-old. It's telling that they don't understand the workings of their own rules engine or points system in any but the most superficial of levels. I would be very surprised to find that any testing at all takes place.

 Therion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
I can't believe that reasonable adults, whether in fun-fun fluffy games or in tournament 40k or anything in between, will ever allow D weapons in regular games, without extensive tailoring on both player's parts. I'm glad rules exist to allow it, but until the D is changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

Keep fighting the good fight. If people like you existed a couple years back, maybe we wouldn't have to deal with Seer Councils that are only made viable by Baron and Grislies, and TauDar, Eldau, Taucrons, Chaoscrons, etc in general on a regular basis. No reasonable adult would ever allow armies to remove their few codex-designed weaknesses by just taking allies (from multiple codices if need be) to fill in the blanks with a few void shields sprinkled on top. I'm glad rules exist to allow allies for fluffy narratives, campaigns and team games, but untill the allies are changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

To me strength D is no more ridiculous than all the other ridiculous crap in the game already, and personally I think there's more variation to strength D (there's a ton of units that can have it) than there is to watching unkillable Seer Councils and Screamerstars wreck face. Strength D removes every death star unit from the face of 40K, and I support any change that brings that about.

While I agree that the deathstar mentality has pervaded 40K and the new ally rules have made it easy to find these combos, allies themselves are not new to 40K. I used to run an Eldar list with Terminators and a Vindicare Assassin a loooong time ago. That was back when you rolled 3+ on 2D6 for terminator armor, iirc.

 Therion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
I can't believe that reasonable adults, whether in fun-fun fluffy games or in tournament 40k or anything in between, will ever allow D weapons in regular games, without extensive tailoring on both player's parts. I'm glad rules exist to allow it, but until the D is changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

Keep fighting the good fight. If people like you existed a couple years back, maybe we wouldn't have to deal with Seer Councils that are only made viable by Baron and Grislies, and TauDar, Eldau, Taucrons, Chaoscrons, etc in general on a regular basis. No reasonable adult would ever allow armies to remove their few codex-designed weaknesses by just taking allies (from multiple codices if need be) to fill in the blanks with a few void shields sprinkled on top. I'm glad rules exist to allow allies for fluffy narratives, campaigns and team games, but untill the allies are changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

To me strength D is no more ridiculous than all the other ridiculous crap in the game already, and personally I think there's more variation to strength D (there's a ton of units that can have it) than there is to watching unkillable Seer Councils and Screamerstars wreck face. Strength D removes every death star unit from the face of 40K, and I support any change that brings that about.

We shouldn't be introducing even more wonky things to fix wonky rules. We should be fixing the stupid rules that are causing the problem in the first place. Its like that scene in Major Pain where he "helps" a man who was shot in the leg ignore the pain by breaking his finger.

Adding more crap isn't going to fix anything at this point.

Also, there's no real reason why the Knight would be an MC. Say what you want about the Riptide and whatever the Eldar Voltron thing is, but they have their MC status rooted to the fact that their "little brothers" have MC profiles as well. If broadsides had a similar profile to sentinels or something and then we got the riptide as an MC, I could see the issue, but it really shouldn't surprise anybody that the Knight will probably be a Walker and not MC.

I'm not saying that it makes sense mechanics wise, just that that's the precedence so far for this kind of thing.

You to can have your very own Knight for only $275!

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Therion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
I can't believe that reasonable adults, whether in fun-fun fluffy games or in tournament 40k or anything in between, will ever allow D weapons in regular games, without extensive tailoring on both player's parts. I'm glad rules exist to allow it, but until the D is changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

Keep fighting the good fight. If people like you existed a couple years back, maybe we wouldn't have to deal with Seer Councils that are only made viable by Baron and Grislies, and TauDar, Eldau, Taucrons, Chaoscrons, etc in general on a regular basis. No reasonable adult would ever allow armies to remove their few codex-designed weaknesses by just taking allies (from multiple codices if need be) to fill in the blanks with a few void shields sprinkled on top. I'm glad rules exist to allow allies for fluffy narratives, campaigns and team games, but untill the allies are changed (weakened, I mean), it's a non-starter no matter what book the rules are written in.

To me strength D is no more ridiculous than all the other ridiculous crap in the game already, and personally I think there's more variation to strength D (there's a ton of units that can have it) than there is to watching unkillable Seer Councils and Screamerstars wreck face. Strength D removes every death star unit from the face of 40K, and I support any change that brings that about.

We shouldn't be introducing even more wonky things to fix wonky rules. We should be fixing the stupid rules that are causing the problem in the first place. Its like that scene in Major Pain where he "helps" a man who was shot in the leg ignore the pain by breaking his finger.

Adding more crap isn't going to fix anything at this point.

Also, there's no real reason why the Knight would be an MC. Say what you want about the Riptide and whatever the Eldar Voltron thing is, but they have their MC status rooted to the fact that their "little brothers" have MC profiles as well. If broadsides had a similar profile to sentinels or something and then we got the riptide as an MC, I could see the issue, but it really shouldn't surprise anybody that the Knight will probably be a Walker and not MC.

I'm not saying that it makes sense mechanics wise, just that that's the precedence so far for this kind of thing.

I'll gladly play a game with no allies and no fortifications. While you're at it throw out flyers too. The game would be better off if none of the previous existed. If you do include those however, I assume lords of war are welcome too.

All this talk about 'we shouldn't be introducing' is laughable. The rules have been introduced. They're legal. Deal with it.

 tomjoad wrote:
IF this is true (a big "if," mind) I'd like to thank GW for saving me a few bucks, and I aplogize to Dreamforge that I probably won't be buying anything from them after all.

I suppose GW did the right thing than... put out a competing plastic stompy walker for those that like to build stompy walkers in plastic, but don't make the rules so good as to actually benefit the third-party they try to bully a bit.


I find it rather hilarious how many people openly peg their purchase of third-party product to good (or overpowered) GW rules ( their rules, of all things!!), yet when GW writes rules "to sell models" (their own that is) it's suddenly heresy.