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.

wufai wrote:


Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.

Nah, much more hilarious to have him buy a model that doesn't scale right as a proxy and looks much worse in comparison, because he couldn't bother to read the brief product description or even view the product photos of a $140 purchase, which detailed exactly what is included.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Written for the previous version of Apoc.

It actuly works quite well in this version if you do the 1SP/3 HP conversion like it says to do in the book, and is suprisingly well balenced (it costs 4000 points, or the cost of two mantas) and can be taken out via anti-armour after mass medStr shooting to take down those pesky void shields.

 insaniak wrote:

That doesn't actually answer the question. Yes, they're a single detachment. Are they 3 individual units, a squadron, or something else?

Unless you can find an answer to that in the rules published so far, there is no way to legally field those three knights without making up rules.

This should answer your question:

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

 Starfarer wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

That doesn't actually answer the question. Yes, they're a single detachment. Are they 3 individual units, a squadron, or something else?

Unless you can find an answer to that in the rules published so far, there is no way to legally field those three knights without making up rules.

This should answer your question:

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

Wait, they can't be scoring units can they? They're vehicles. If so, wow that's OP.

What?

Because vehicles can't already be scoring in certain missions already?


Don't be daft, this is perfectly ok.

Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...

My point exactly.

Yeah that's bananas. Until its written officially it doesn't mean diddly.

 Starfarer wrote:

wufai wrote:


Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.

Nah, much more hilarious to have him buy a model that doesn't scale right as a proxy and looks much worse in comparison, because he couldn't bother to read the brief product description or even view the product photos of a $140 purchase, which detailed exactly what is included.

I think you need to add an IMHO to that "looks worse" because IMHO and quite a few others, that DFG Crusader looks a hell of a lot better than the gothic monstrosities GW puts out. As to scaling right.. one to one and a half inches really isn't going to be that big of a deal. Especially with the minimal amounts of terrain on most 40k boards these days.

 Eldarain wrote:
Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...

Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.

FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)

Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...

Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.

FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)

Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.

15 AV14 LRMBT = 750pts minimum. That's 2 Knights worth. So 12 AV13 superheavies. Then you have the fact the Knight has a 4+ directional save against shooting and is a walker with 12 rear armour. So the LRBT can be taken down if you drop something behind them OR if you charge in to combat with them with any mid-strength CC unit which reveals that juicy AV10 rear. Then also have the fact that you have to remove 6 hull points to bring a knight down and thus reduce it's firepower, but only 3 to bring the LRBT down.

The LRBT have 5 battle cannons, 5 heavy bolters and can take sponsons. The Knights have 4 Battle Cannon shots, 2 Heavy Stubbers and a close combat weapon that means they don't just suddenly die when a decent CC unit charges them or indeed they can charge a monstrous creature and probably kill it in 1 or 2 rounds... in fact it takes at least a S7 close combat unit to even have a (small) chance to hurt them.

Then the Knights are also scoring units.

Overall, I'd sooner have the Knights.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...

Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.

FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)

Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.

15 AV14 LRMBT = 750pts minimum. That's 2 Knights worth. So 12 AV13 superheavies. Then you have the fact the Knight has a 4+ directional save against shooting and is a walker with 12 rear armour. So the LRBT can be taken down if you drop something behind them OR if you charge in to combat with them with any mid-strength CC unit which reveals that juicy AV10 rear. Then also have the fact that you have to remove 6 hull points to bring a knight down and thus reduce it's firepower, but only 3 to bring the LRBT down.

The LRBT have 5 battle cannons, 5 heavy bolters and can take sponsons. The Knights have 4 Battle Cannon shots, 2 Heavy Stubbers and a close combat weapon that means they don't just suddenly die when a decent CC unit charges them or indeed they can charge a monstrous creature and probably kill it in 1 or 2 rounds... in fact it takes at least a S7 close combat unit to even have a (small) chance to hurt them.

Then the Knights are also scoring units.

Overall, I'd sooner have the Knights.

Wha?

Check your maths dude, I may be being dense, but your numbers don't seem to make any sense.

ski2060 wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:


Nah, much more hilarious to have him buy a model that doesn't scale right as a proxy and looks much worse in comparison, because he couldn't bother to read the brief product description or even view the product photos of a $140 purchase, which detailed exactly what is included.

I think you need to add an IMHO to that "looks worse" because IMHO and quite a few others, that DFG Crusader looks a hell of a lot better than the gothic monstrosities GW puts out. As to scaling right.. one to one and a half inches really isn't going to be that big of a deal. Especially with the minimal amounts of terrain on most 40k boards these days.

Seeing as I'm the one stating something, you can assume it is my opinion. As for scaling, I guess we will see when more people get their hands on the Knights, but many people are saying it is closer to 6'' rather than 8", which makes the DF models a good 2-2.5" taller, as well as being a good bit bulkier. Either way, as long as the players playing with them don't have an issue it really isn't my concern.

I was mainly mocking that post for it's "bash GW first, bother to look up the facts later" and had the added hilarity of calling a separate, optional item extortion. My dislike of the DF model was really just a side-note.

He hit a 1 on accident.

He typed 15 but meant 5 LRMBT.

5 LRMBT = 750 points.

Honestly, I think that Knights should be scoring. They're a little more expensive than two stock standard LRMBT, and if you start to give either of those LRMBT's upgrades of any sort it brings them even closer into line. Also, with proper upgrades, those two LRMBT's could in theory drop a knight titan in one shooting phase, where-as the Knight will be hard pressed to do the same to both tanks in return, barring a charge.

Just my thoughts on that, take it easy.

-RT-

 azreal13 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Eldarain wrote:
Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...

Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.

FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)

Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.

15 AV14 LRMBT = 750pts minimum. That's 2 Knights worth. So 12 AV13 superheavies. Then you have the fact the Knight has a 4+ directional save against shooting and is a walker with 12 rear armour. So the LRBT can be taken down if you drop something behind them OR if you charge in to combat with them with any mid-strength CC unit which reveals that juicy AV10 rear. Then also have the fact that you have to remove 6 hull points to bring a knight down and thus reduce it's firepower, but only 3 to bring the LRBT down.

The LRBT have 5 battle cannons, 5 heavy bolters and can take sponsons. The Knights have 4 Battle Cannon shots, 2 Heavy Stubbers and a close combat weapon that means they don't just suddenly die when a decent CC unit charges them or indeed they can charge a monstrous creature and probably kill it in 1 or 2 rounds... in fact it takes at least a S7 close combat unit to even have a (small) chance to hurt them.

Then the Knights are also scoring units.

Overall, I'd sooner have the Knights.

Wha?

Check your maths dude, I may be being dense, but your numbers don't seem to make any sense.

You said 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV14 superheavies. I assumed that meant 5 Leman Russes, as 5 Leman Russes cost about the same as 2 Knights. So 15 HP on 5 AV14 LRBT vs 12 HP on 2 AV14 Knights with a 4+ Inv save against shooting and no crappy rear armour.

So you took my 15:6 comparison, reduced that to 5:2, then mistyped it so it appeared you had somehow equated 15 Russes to 750pts.

Ok.

Still rather have the Russes in many circumstances.

 Red__Thirst wrote:
Also, with proper upgrades, those two LRMBT's could in theory drop a knight titan in one shooting phase

How? Even with Lascannons, 2x multi meltras and a Vanquisher on both, that's 2 Lascannon shots, on average 1 of which hit, 0.66 of which glance/penetrate, 0.33 of which gets through the save. The Vanquisher cannons, 2 shots, we'll say both penetrate/glance, 1 hit, 0.5 hull points. Multimeltas, 4 shots, 2 hits on average, at long range only 0.66 glance/pen, 0.33 hull points lost. So, that's 1.167 hull points per turn, on average, 6 turns to bring down the night.

If the multimeltas get in close range, you improve your chances slightly, but only be about 0.16 per turn and if the multimeltas are in close range, the Knight is in charge range and you can kiss your tanks goodbye. You could upgrade one to Pask, but still you aren't going to do a hell of a lot of damage in 1 turn, and then you're talking about 200pts per Leman Russ before you add Pask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
So you took my 15:6 comparison, reduced that to 5:2, then mistyped it so it appeared you had somehow equated 15 Russes to 750pts.

Ok.

Still rather have the Russes in many circumstances.

No, I took your 15:6 comparison, reduced it to 5:2... I'm not sure where I mistyped anything? I equated 5 leman russes to 750pts minimum, because 5 x 150pts = 750pts.

Sorry you just misunderstood after I misunderstood you. I misunderstood and thought you were talking about 15 hull points, which is 5 leman russes. Hence why I compared 5 Leman Russes to 2 Knights.

Either way... I'd rather have the Knights in most circumstances. In your 15 v 6 example, you lose 3 battle cannon shots and gain a lot of survivability and scoring units. The only circumstance I'd rather have the Russes is when they can sit far enough away and have enough bubble wrap that the enemy never gets a shot off at them.

azreal13 wrote:

Ok.

Still rather have the Russes in many circumstances.

Knights look cool tho.

 azreal13 wrote:
So you took my 15:6 comparison, reduced that to 5:2, then mistyped it so it appeared you had somehow equated 15 Russes to 750pts.

Ok.

Still rather have the Russes in many circumstances.

I'll be honest, I too prefer the humble Leman Russ Battle Tank (specifically the Vanquisher, Punisher, and Demolisher in that order are favorites, all others are also good and useful, but those are my personal favorites) as you can build them to fulfill a specific role within the Imperial Guard specifically.

That said, I am not above putting a lone Knight Errant on the table as both a centerpiece to give my force some much needed ability to deal with monstrous creatures, and have some additional anti-tank firepower. My guard army is Vostroyan Firstborn, so having an Adeptus Mechanicus aligned Knight rolling with an Imperial Guard regiment known for their strong ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus makes sense thematically. I'm not saying I'd run a Knight every game, far from it, in fact I'd only really consider running one in an 1850 point game or higher honestly.

It's not a fair comparison to look at a knight vs. equivalent points in Leman Russes as they fulfill two different roles. Leman Russes are not at all adept at close combat. They're a shooting & fire support unit exclusively, where-as a Knight is an all-rounder. It can shoot and also has some beastly close combat prowess as well.

Two Leman Russ MBT's in a squadron (Standard pattern or Exterminator, take your pick. I'd go with Exterminators though), with heavy bolter sponsons and, let's say a hull Lascannon come out to 370 points on the nose. AV:14/13/10, total six hull points combined and are much much easier to put in cover to benefit from at very least a 5+ or even 4+ cover save.

A Knight Errant is the same points cost, same number of hull points, does benefit from a 4+ invulnerable save on a single facing since cover saves for it are going to be fairly difficult to get, and is AV: 13/12/12.

Honestly, they're both good options, and I don't see one being amazingly better than the other. I'd feel like I was getting a good unit for the points in either instance, and points allowing, would run both together if possible.

Just my thoughts. Take it easy for now.


Edit:
TL;DR: Leman Russes? Knights? Why not BOTH??

-RT-

I probably WILL take both. I have an IG army, I intend to buy a Knight and if I'm fielding the Knight, I'll probably field 2 LRBT's next to it... alongside Chimeras, Valks, maybe a Hellhound or two.

BUT, given the choice between 2 LRBT's and a Knight and I had to choose one (or 15 LRBT's and 6 Knights), I'm struggling to think of a time I'd prefer the LRBT. The LRBT is slightly more shooty, so I'd only prefer them if I could guarantee they are unlikely to be shot and near-impossible to assault. But it's not as mobile, easier to kill on all but front armour, suffers ill effects from penetrations, and can be taken down by a 100pt pack of Fenrisian Wolves if they manage to get in to combat with it.

Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

I was wondering about that two weeks ago or so. It really makes Knights awesome and easily worth their points. This is great news. Spending over 1K pts on 3 Knights is much less prohibitive when they're capable of winning the game objectives for you, and because you don't have to spend on actual troops choices any more than the absolute minimum.

 Therion wrote:

Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

I was wondering about that two weeks ago or so. It really makes Knights awesome and easily worth their points. This is great news. Spending over 1K pts on 3 Knights is much less prohibitive when they're capable of winning the game objectives for you, and because you don't have to spend on actual troops choices any more than the absolute minimum.

Yep, for all I've said re LRBT vs Knights just recently, I will still be looking toward 3 eventually to allow me to field them as a primary. I'm more modelling than gaming orientated as a rule, but the chance to paint up 3 individual freeblades in their own personal heraldries AND have them be better than useless in game? I'm in!

They kinda HAVE to be scoring. Because otherwise, if they hypothetically weren't scoring, then if you play them as a primary detachment with no allies (which seems legal), they'd have NO scoring units on the table. And that'd be silly.

TiamatRoar wrote:
They kinda HAVE to be scoring. Because otherwise, if they hypothetically weren't scoring, then if you play them as a primary detachment with no allies (which seems legal), they'd have NO scoring units on the table. And that'd be silly.

But no different from the FW Armoured Battle Group list, hence the to and fro about Russes vs Knights just recently.

Well, I've ordered one!!

tbh it'll take me months to finish it, by then surely some sort of rules will make sense to all!

I just would like to see who they are able to ally with. So far with no ruling in WD I can put one with my CSM.

 Starfarer wrote:

This should answer your question:

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

Great. So in their rush to publish a two-page codex to sell their new White Dwarf, they managed to forget about adding rules for Warlords or the FOC.

The idea that they were deliberately publishing incomplete rules in order to sell a later book at last made some sort of sense. Finding out that they just 'forgot' to include key rules in the article... And in their haste to correct that oversight (on Facebook...? Seriously?) they still haven't bothered to cover who can actually take them as allies... That's just sad.

Poor form, GW, poor form.

I'm starting to think there's no plan for any of this gak.

 insaniak wrote:

 Starfarer wrote:

This should answer your question:

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

Great. So in their rush to publish a two-page codex to sell their new White Dwarf, they managed to forget about adding rules for Warlords or the FOC.

The idea that they were deliberately publishing incomplete rules in order to sell a later book at last made some sort of sense. Finding out that they just 'forgot' to include key rules in the article... And in their haste to correct that oversight (on Facebook...? Seriously?) they still haven't bothered to cover who can actually take them as allies... That's just sad.

Poor form, GW, poor form.

You may be insane, but I completely agree.

Could be that they were saving that for next weeks issue, but didn't bother mentioning it.