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.

Why? Why are extra, optional rules that you can use if you want to "comically stupid"?

If you were forced into using them you would have a glimmer of a point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
glimmer of a point.

Oh Jesus, feth off. You can share an opinion without being a giant dick about it, you know.

I'm of the opinion all the random tables, whether you're "forced" to use it or not, are comically, abhorrently stupid. Telling me that I don't even have a "glimmer" of a point is exceptionally rude.

Because there are no options. You literally have the 5pt choice between rapid-fire battle cannon or thermal cannon. Unless there's something I don't know about, that is the only difference between a Knight Paladin and a Knight Errant. This random table (which is random) is your only means of customising your force beyond that.

Whats the minumum in a primary detachment? 3? one for warlord and 2 as troops?

How about the profile?
The AV ist known and also number of hull points which seems to be equal to that of the Trans. C'tan.
Other than that, are there differences to Dreads?

What about the profile? It is a superheavy, walker so has all the usual rules - smash, HoW, etc - that a SH walker would have.

SRSFACE - and so is quoting out of context.

You stated once that iwas comically stupid as fact, then correctly stated it is your opinion. In my opinion getting so clearly agitated over an optional rule in a codex you seemingly have no interest in using, meaning you will not even have to make the choice yourself, is not the most constructive use of energy.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What about the profile? It is a superheavy, walker so has all the usual rules - smash, HoW, etc - that a SH walker would have.

What I meant was the BS and whatnot.

 Zande4 wrote:

 Gloomfang wrote:
Unless they start in with Baneblade variants.

Still think the SH and d-weapons are out of the bottle.:

What happened to the plastic GWS Shadowsword / Stormsword?

Edit: Ah they just rolled them all into the Baneblade kit.

Looking at my Apocalypse book out of the 8 GWS Variants and the 1 FW Variant, only one has a Str D weapon; the Shadowsword. So as long as they keep that one out, we should be fine.

Actually the shadowsword is just fine for the inclusion of D weapons, its 400ish points iirc for the ability to remove 5 models a turn if the opponent plays it smart and spreads out his troops. It will also give hordes a part in the game now since a shadowsword will get overwhelmed quickly by hordes. Oh and also finally a screamerstar and seercouncil killer. So if they slap the shadowsword into the IG dex then happy days its back the old super expensive and complicated rock paper scissors days of yore.

 wuestenfux wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
What about the profile? It is a superheavy, walker so has all the usual rules - smash, HoW, etc - that a SH walker would have.

What I meant was the BS and whatnot.

Dreadnought stats, unless you have a Seneschal (your warlord is automatically one) which is +1 to both WS and BS, or an aspirant whcih is -1 to both

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The knight detachment is separate from allies 1-3 can be taken, Do not score

So one can field an army with an ally detachment, a single super heavy unit, and Knight detachment consisting of 1 to 3 non-scoring Knights?

Knights are scoring....

SRSFACE - erm, you realise that the table is optional? IF you want....not YOU MUST.

According to the guy with the codex, Knights in the Knight detachment aren't.

Only knights taken as a primary are scoring.

Well: Speaking as someone that doesn't have the escalation or apoc rules, I'm glad they are included in the codex. And even if I don't plan on getting more then a single Knight I'm glad to have a "real" codex for it...

What I don't think was needed, was the Companion book, that seems to be just more fluff and "how to paint them pretty like the studio models"

 DanielBeaver wrote:

Actually, I'm just puzzled in general at the lack of customization options. Other superheavies get lots of wargear choices, what's up with these?

My Eldar superheavies disagree with this greatly.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:

 DanielBeaver wrote:

Actually, I'm just puzzled in general at the lack of customization options. Other superheavies get lots of wargear choices, what's up with these?

My Eldar superheavies disagree with this greatly.

I guess you're right. BUT STILL, why on earth don't superheavies get lots of wargear options? That seems like such a missed opportunity to personalize your Lord of War!

Is there a minimum number of Knights for a Primary Detachment?

Can you just have one - who is the Warlord and so gets the bonuses without rolling on the table?

So does a grav gun immobilize this thing on a 6?

Bartali wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

The knight detachment is separate from allies 1-3 can be taken, Do not score

So one can field an army with an ally detachment, a single super heavy unit, and Knight detachment consisting of 1 to 3 non-scoring Knights?

Knights are scoring....

SRSFACE - erm, you realise that the table is optional? IF you want....not YOU MUST.

According to the guy with the codex, Knights in the Knight detachment aren't.

Only knights taken as a primary are scoring.

This is how I read it.

I plan to run a Ravenwing army or a biker army with a single Knight and maybe another in higher point games. That's fine for me.

Pony_law wrote:
So does a grav gun immobilize this thing on a 6?

Never mind, I just remembered they cannot be immobilized.

Pony_law wrote:
So does a grav gun immobilize this thing on a 6?

No, see the super heavy rules

 Mr Morden wrote:
Is there a minimum number of Knights for a Primary Detachment?

Can you just have one - who is the Warlord and so gets the bonuses without rolling on the table?

From memory, 3 - 6. You do not have to roll on the table. It is 100% optional.

Now a army of super heavys more titans that can't be killed in less you get lucky and glance them to death with a butt load of hp won't be easy to do and i thought ripetide and wrightknight spam a pain now my marines will never win again

I love how people pan Land Raiders as super easy to kill despite bring AV14 and 4 HP, yet cry like angry babies over an AV13 vehicle with 6 HP. Knights cost more than 2 LRBTs, has less firepower, and only marginally better survivability. Yes, yes, its armed with a Str D CCW, which at most will remove 4 models in any give Assault, yet mostly likely will only kill 2 a round at Initiative. Stomp and the HoW together will account for more models removed than the Reaper Chainsword will.

SJ

Ovion worked out that on average, you need to assault it with 6 Repentia to kill it comfortably, although 4 will do.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:


There is mention of traitor Knights of house Drakon leading a daemon army.

Yet can't ally with Chaos

No worries. The Codex: Chaos Knights is next month. It's the same Codex, sprinkled with cool flames and evil black spikes. Notable changes in the Codex: Chaos Knights includes: allies table is upside down, one Knight is painted pea soup green, and the mandatory random table is for 'chaos god traits'. Oh, and throwing a 1 is 'replace your Chaos Knight model with a Chaos Spawn model'. Have fun!

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I love how people pan Land Raiders as super easy to kill despite bring AV14 and 4 HP, yet cry like angry babies over an AV13 vehicle with 6 HP. Knights cost more than 2 LRBTs, has less firepower, and only marginally better survivability. Yes, yes, its armed with a Str D CCW, which at most will remove 4 models in any give Assault, yet mostly likely will only kill 2 a round at Initiative. Stomp and the HoW together will account for more models removed than the Reaper Chainsword will.

SJ

AV 13 with a 4+ invulnerable save (or 3+ on your warlord) that is a super heavy so you have to score multiple vehicle explodes results to remove it, plus you have a very hard time reducing its effectiveness though weapon destroyed or immobilized results. And it can move 12" then charge, so you're not getting stuff in melta range of it without it charging you unless you drop them in.

I'm not saying you can't kill it. Just saying some of the complaints about it being harder to kill than a land raider are pretty justified.

 dementedwombat wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
I love how people pan Land Raiders as super easy to kill despite bring AV14 and 4 HP, yet cry like angry babies over an AV13 vehicle with 6 HP. Knights cost more than 2 LRBTs, has less firepower, and only marginally better survivability. Yes, yes, its armed with a Str D CCW, which at most will remove 4 models in any give Assault, yet mostly likely will only kill 2 a round at Initiative. Stomp and the HoW together will account for more models removed than the Reaper Chainsword will.

SJ

AV 13 with a 4+ invulnerable save (or 3+ on your warlord) that is a super heavy so you have to score multiple vehicle explodes results to remove it, plus you have a very hard time reducing its effectiveness though weapon destroyed or immobilized results. And it can move 12" then charge, so you're not getting stuff in melta range of it without it charging you unless you drop them in.

I'm not saying you can't kill it. Just saying some of the complaints about it being harder to kill than a land raider are pretty justified.

Sometimes very justified depending on what you run. Nids have trouble without spamming lots of Crones, and I'd hate to be an Ork player fighting Knights. Taudar and Necrons will have little trouble, though.

Wut, if you take knights as primary you can actually roll and make a knight worse? Weird

So is the knight detachment like the inquisitor detachment in that it doesn't count as an allied detachment per se? I love the model but at $180nz each i can't see myself shilling for more than one, can you just rock 1 as an ally, inquisitor style?

 wuestenfux wrote:

The knight detachment is separate from allies 1-3 can be taken, Do not score

So one can field an army with an ally detachment, a single super heavy unit, and Knight detachment consisting of 1 to 3 non-scoring Knights?

Were this May be possible the point total would be HUGE!! By that time you could actually take 2 super heavies as you wold have reached the 2000pt thresh hold and doubled you FOC chart.

Hm, I guess the rumour that popped up a while ago about Errants being 350, not 370 points was false then? Bummer... :/

nosferatu1001 wrote:What about the profile? It is a superheavy, walker so has all the usual rules - smash, HoW, etc - that a SH walker would have.

SRSFACE - and so is quoting out of context.

You stated once that iwas comically stupid as fact, then correctly stated it is your opinion. In my opinion getting so clearly agitated over an optional rule in a codex you seemingly have no interest in using, meaning you will not even have to make the choice yourself, is not the most constructive use of energy.

[MOD EDIT - RULE 1. Alpharius] namely the bit where you essentially said "no you can't have an opinion, you're dumb". SRS' statement about it being "comically stupid" isn't getting "clearly agitated", it's laughing at how stupid a rule is. Hence the word "comically".

Yes, they're harder to kill than Land Raiders. They're also a lot more expensive, and an army of these is going to be a very small number of models. It's not like it's Codex: Riptides. If your army can deal with heavy armour, it can deal with Knights. It really isn't that hard to deal with AV13, people, even if it does get an invuln (which is only for one facing, by the way).