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.

Main detachment
HQ
Knight Paladin (Warlord)

Troops
Knight Paladin

750 points

Allies
HQ
Librarian - divination

Troops
Scouts - 5x Sniper rifles

Elites
Mortis dreadnought 2x TL autocannons

250 points

Scouts would hopefully be set up or infiltrated into a fairly protected area, and try to survive, whilst the librarian buffs the Knights with prescience, ignore cover or 4++ (whichever gets rolled)
The Mortis dread is there to try and counter the Knights' weakness of flyers.

I think this makes decent use of the 250 points available for the allies and has good synergy with the knights. Any thoughts? There's really not much to play around with, only the 125 points for the dreadnought could be changed.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, having thought more on the list, this may be a more viable alternative:

Main detachment
HQ
Knight Paladin (Warlord)

Troops
Knight Errant

745 points

Allies
HQ
Librarian - divination, PFG

Troops
Scouts - 5x Sniper rifles

Fortification - Quadgun

255 points

In this list the quadgun would be set up in the middle of the board, with the librarian and scouts behind the wall, and the knights standing together in the middle, within 3 of the librarian, giving them both a 4++ save from any direction.
This will help protect vs melta drop pods, as well as helping the scouts stay alive vs cover ignoring atttacks.

Do you still need 2x Troops knights minimum?

I've re-read the rules:

Imperial Knights can be fielded as an army in their own right, in a primary detachment of three to six Imperial Knights. They may also be taken as allies; you can include up to three Imperial Knights as a single allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army.

So you are right, you do need 3 knights in a primary detachment, which is a shame because it puts them out of 1000 points games. I was thinking they could be taken as 1-6 in a primary, oh well.

The list could be swapped around to have DA as the primary, but with taking only scouts and a librarian, there would be no way to fit in any real anti air with the 65 points left over. (2 Flak missile launchers on scouts really don't cover anti air).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
With this in mind, Grey Knights might be the best bet for getting 2 knights into 1000 points.

Hq
Inquisitor Coteaz

Troops
2x Warrior acolytes, 3x HB servitors (coteaz's squad on quadgun)
3x Warrior acolytes (try and hide these guys somewhere)

Fortifications
Aegis defense line - Quadgun

Allies
2x Knight Paladin

Something along these lines, although I'm not a GK player, so if I've missed something let me know.

I've set up a 1200 gk/ik list recently, have a look at how I went about it. I only used one knight though as I can't afford another right now! Lol

Well, at this small pt level, I wouldn't take a Knight. For GK, I'd go for a DK or two.

Why the Knight Paladin when the Errant is cheaper and better?

Also you've identified their weakness in AA yet done nothing to really mitigate it, because if anything you've exacerbated it by adding backfield units that are your only scoring and are very vulnerable to flyers with only a token gesture of the quadgun for AA. Either get serious AA (which you won't with the available points) or go all out with an army that can ignore flyers.

Though overall you will probably struggle to make 2 Knights work at 1k.

Why the Knight Paladin when the Errant is cheaper and better?

Simply stating this does not make it true. The paladin is more than twice as efficient than the errant when it comes to shooting infantry with saves of 3+, it gets an additional template shot over the errant as well as another heavy stubber. This also makes it better at attempting to cause grounding tests on FMCs.

Personally I like the Paladin more for these reasons. The only area the errant is better is when it comes to exploding vehicles and 2+ save units.

However the Paladin can still handle light/medium vehicles pretty well with 2 battle cannon shots per turn, and has its Str D chainsaw for anything with AV13/14.
So why is the errant "better"?

Also you've identified their weakness in AA yet done nothing to really mitigate it, because if anything you've exacerbated it by adding backfield units that are your only scoring and are very vulnerable to flyers with only a token gesture of the quadgun for AA.

You are free to suggest a better set up, which for 250 points provides your warlord, 2 troops and some form of anti air.

The knights are scoring btw, so the backfield are not my only scoring units.

Also, token gesture?? The quadgun is as good as anti air gets for some armies, what more do you want? Especially considering the point restraints.

It is a struggle, thats why I made this thread. My group mostly plays 1000 points, and I want 2 knights in a list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Space marines might cover what I'm looking for:

Iron hands Chapter tactics

HQ
Librarian

Troops
Scouts x5 - Bolters
Scouts x5 - Bolters

Heavy support
Stalker

Allies
Knight Paladin
Knight Paladin

5 scouts could get sniper rifles, if the stalker is changed for a hunter, or if a paladin is changed to an errant.
Iron hands CT is chosen to help keep the fragile main detachment alive.

The Errant is better because it is mono purpose. The Paladin is confused the battlecannons want to stay back and utilise that 72" range whilst the Reaper wants to be in combat. Essentially it has a less drastic version of the issue that plagues the godhammer landraider. Either way you're wasting points. Also all the things that matter these days have a 2+ save which is why the Errant is better because it causes problems to the stuff that hurts you (Riptides, Broadsides, Centurions, Seer Councils, Wave Serpents etc).

If you're taking 2 at 1k possibly you could justify 1 Paladin for tactical flexibility. But in general unless you're taking that 3rd Knight always take the Errant.

Also they are certainly not scoring. I have no idea where you got that idea from.

As for the list you're going to struggle against flyers with 250 points you're not going to get decent AA. So take stuff that isn't bothered by flyers. Stuff that can outflank or has a 2+ save or is transported in a fast transport or flyer itself. But 250 is going to make that very difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That SM contingent looks better.

Knights are scoring. This was confirmed by GW reps.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2014/02/imperial-knight-rules-clarification.html

Battle Cannons have a 72" range, by no means does that force you to remain at such range. Advance to midfield, stubber an MC/vehicle/infantry squad, Battle Cannon an AV13 vehicle or squatting infantry in the back line, charge the former. Or just move up 1-12'' firing that battle cannon all the way until you get to cut something. Paladins are for killing everything but what the Errant is for killing. They compliment each other.

Only if they are in the primary detachment are they scoring not as the Knight Allied Detachment.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Only if they are in the primary detachment are they scoring not as the Knight Allied Detachment.

Unless you have a source you aren't sharing, I'll agree to disagree.

I have the book and they are the only scoring in primary. and you need 1 as a warlord and 2 as troops.

But just for fun, how many walking machines can you get in a list? We will call Terminator armor the smallest of the walking machines. Because that armor is just a small walking machine really.

Inquisitor Karamazov
2x Autocannon Dreads
2x 5-man Terminator Squads w/ psycannons
2x Nemesis Dreadknights
2 Imperial knight Errants.

I think that might actually be a tad over 2k. Maybe drop one nemesis dreadknight or one of the autocannon dreadnoughts. But either way, this army would be kind of silly to see.

 Ravenous D wrote:
I have the book and they are the only scoring in primary. and you need 1 as a warlord and 2 as troops.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Only if they are in the primary detachment are they scoring not as the Knight Allied Detachment.

this, i really dont know how you got the idea they were scoring.. i feel the enemy will focus down your 2 tiny scoring units, then spend the rest of the game hiding from your titans, then winning through holding objectives. just imo

you could go 2 errants to free up some points? as most 1000 point games are on 4x4 boards the range isnt really an issue.

The reason for the confusion is that the books aren't out for general release, (at least on the GW website, they are only pre-order), so many people are still going off the white dwarf and what that one GW guy said on the internet.

The errant really does put out less damage than the paladin vs most targets, that's my problem with it. Anything T6 and 3+ or worse, is hit exactly the same by the melta cannon as it is by the Paladins battle cannon, except the Paladin shoots twice and gets 3 more heavy stubber shots.

Of course you are right, the list is very weak on scoring units, when I made it I was under the impression that all knights were scoring, so the list would have worked much better if that was the case.

i realize the errants are worse, im not contesting that, thats why they cost less... also you need points, i dont see the hesitation?

your big points are,
1. wanting 2 titans
2. having a chance at winning

so make both errants, save some points and invest into troop options?

Unless the points for the knights have changed from those listed in WD, I'd only save 10 points.

For this cost, with the 2 scout squads I have, that could give them all sniper rifles, or 1 heavy bolter and 2 sniper rifles, or 5 camo cloaks, but would lose out on 2 battle cannon shots and 2 heavy stubbers.

I really think those 5 points really gives a lot to the paladin, compared to what it could buy in the rest of the army. Tbh, the scouts will probably be going to ground most of the time anyway, in an attempt to keep them alive, so extra weapons may be a little wasted on them anyway.

Yeah swapping to the superior Errant doesn't save you any real amount of points. I'd only suggest that because it is clearly the more competitive variant (more efficient, does more damage to the stuff that matters). But trying to fit 2 Knights in at 1k is always going to cause this problem.

Just take them as allies. You only need 1 troop choice.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Yeah swapping to the superior Errant doesn't save you any real amount of points. I'd only suggest that because it is clearly the more competitive variant (more efficient, does more damage to the stuff that matters). But trying to fit 2 Knights in at 1k is always going to cause this problem.

Did you buy and make an errant, and now regret your decision? You keep saying it is superior, yet have had several points put against you with no response.

I have actually put out why it is superior it is even laid out in that very post you quoted. Cool if you want the Paladin because you like the look of it or because you want to handicap yourself. But the Errant is clearly the more competitive option.

You said it is more efficient...but vs the majority of targets this is simply not the case. This is not laying out a case why it is better, it is just stating that it is better with nothing to support it.

Reasons why the Paladin is better:
2 Templates is better than 1.
Str 9 is no better than str 8 vs most non-vehicles (same ID threshold, wounding most units on 2+)
one extra heavy stubber
Ordnance has utility for picking out important models from squads (this makes the paladin far better vs screamerstar for example).
Ordnance rule also makes the double battlecannon still efficient vs light/medium behicles
Double the potential range (not normally an issue, but could help on larger boards).

Because of this this, the Paladin will cause more than double the number of wounds when fired at most infantry squads, has more guns to snapfire at FMCs, can snipe important models due to barrage, and is still a threat to most vehicles.

Reasons why the Errant is better:
Better at exploding vehicles
Can ignore 2+ saves

Against units with 2+ save in the open the errant will do better. If targeting a squad with 2+ saves in 4+ cover, the errant will only do 0.5 more wounds than the paladin. Is this worth being less than half as effective vs other targets?
I can't argue though that the errant is good vs armour. Still, 370 points for 1 melta shot? That's quite a lot.

If you want a knight, and need some dedicated anti armour, then the errant is certainly the way to go. For any other situation the paladin is the better choice.

Am I missing something here?

Clearly you're missing what you need to hurt to win games.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

Ordnance has utility for picking out important models from squads (this makes the paladin far better vs screamerstar for example).

How does it do that? Maybe you are thinking of barrage, where the wounds come from the center of the blast. Ordnance doesn't work that way though.

"Ordnance has utility for picking out important models from squads (this makes the paladin far better vs screamerstar for example). "

I think you have mistaken ordnance for barrage.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Clearly you're missing what you need to hurt to win games.

Like? You still aren't putting forward an argument here.

You simply state I am wrong and you are right. You need to actually say, what potentially game breaking unit could an errant take out, that a paladin could not.

And yeah, my bad on ordnance, have been using ordnance barrage weapons recently and added the rules together.

Don't get sucked into it Bill, FlingItNow does this all the time. Just say "thanks for your feedback" and move on

I'm pretty certain I already spelt it out:

FlingitNow wrote:

The Errant is better because it is mono purpose. The Paladin is confused the battlecannons want to stay back and utilise that 72" range whilst the Reaper wants to be in combat. Essentially it has a less drastic version of the issue that plagues the godhammer landraider. Either way you're wasting points. Also all the things that matter these days have a 2+ save which is why the Errant is better because it causes problems to the stuff that hurts you (Riptides, Broadsides, Centurions, Seer Councils, Wave Serpents etc). 

.

"Thanks for your feedback".

Actually I may be playing my knight as an errant. Not because they are better, but its the only one that can fit into a deathwing army at 1000 points.

Belial

5x terminators
5x terminators

Knight errant

Not at all competitive. I just think the knight would look cool if painted up to look like a freeblade associated with the deathwing.

on the errant vs Paladin, one isn't better then the other. they're just DIFFERNT.

I suspect the better choice is going to depend on your local meta.

if your local group still is heavily reliant on armor, employing "5th edition lists" the errant may be the better choice as it'll be better as killing those tanks.

A Knight errant can kill two land raiders a turn. so yeah in a "heavy armor" pre-dominant meta, the errant is a better choice, in a more.. fluid dynamic where you're more likely to face off against mostly infantry backed by armor, the Paladin is proably the better pick.

that's the thing though, with a Paladin's melee D weapon, that will kill enemy armor by itself, so really a second weapon is gonna be used MOSTLY for secondary targets (using the stubber to "mark" your melee target)

so in games where you're fighting a typical list the Paladin is proably stronger.

IMHO with the points cost a Knight costs being too specialized might be a bad thing