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.

All going to depend on what sort of Maniple one is fielding, and expecting to face I guess.

Lancers seem like they might be handy for heavier Maniples, to prevent enemy Warhounds having it all their own way. Able to close the range, more manouverable, something the Warhounds can’t safely ignore. All helps reduce the incoming, and prevent yourself being outflanked by buying you a bit more time to reposition if needed.

Chopstick wrote:

There were no guarantee that you would hit those shot, especially when the cover modifier was in place. Auto hit is a huge deal when the others suffer from ork-tier shooting.

Acheron is more versatile, while Lancer is a more durable frontrunner/distration carnifex.

I hear ya, but given the turn sequence it's not a case of walking up and toasting at the desired angle, your opponent moves before the combat phase too and i wouldn't just let my opponent have the perfect shot! they have a 3" unit coherency too, so i'm willing to bet that the hit tally from the flamestorm cannon will average to ~2.3

I'm genuinely exited to see the sprue for the cerastus knights - given how casually they broke the news of the new reaver kit vaiant and the warlord weapon sprue, i really think they are stalling on showing the cerastus sprue for a reason

 SirDonlad wrote:

I'm genuinely exited to see the sprue for the cerastus knights - given how casually they broke the news of the new reaver kit vaiant and the warlord weapon sprue, i really think they are stalling on showing the cerastus sprue for a reason

And so you should be excited. The Cerastus Knights will come with an optional second sprue to arm them with Knight-sized electric guitars, harmonicas and maracas.

And coming next month are Questoris variants who provide backing vocals, complete with their own microphone stand.

I'm surprised you haven't yet heard about this...

SamusDrake wrote:
and maracas.

not convinced

Legio Maracas has a certain ring to it.

SamusDrake wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:

I'm genuinely exited to see the sprue for the cerastus knights - given how casually they broke the news of the new reaver kit vaiant and the warlord weapon sprue, i really think they are stalling on showing the cerastus sprue for a reason

And so you should be excited. The Cerastus Knights Bards will come with an optional second sprue to arm them with KnightBard-sized electric guitars, harmonicas and maracas.

And coming next month are Questoris variants who provide backing vocals, complete with their own microphone stand.

I'm surprised you haven't yet heard about this...

FIFY

The new knight requires FAQ right away. Community article claims save of 6 always. However +1 to save roll is pretty irrelevant if your save is -. Either there would need to be mention of minimum or all - entries should be 7. As it is be hit by volcano cannon they would get no save. Opposite of what article mentions. So either rule is written poorly or community article was in error.

If the image of the command terminal is the final version, then the Community article is in error, I'd say. No FAQ needed, as it's fairly clear.

It may not be what was intended and thus need an erratum, but it's not confusing, I think.

changemod wrote:
The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

That does make sense though, the Atropos is quite different to the other cerastus knights in appearance and is a Mechanicum specific knight I believe (rather than being used by knight households), so fluff wise it doesn't really fit for it to be included in a knight household banner.

I would imagine that we will see a dual Acheron\Castigator kit fairly soon, as it should be easier to fit both sets of weapon options on a sprue as they aren't as big as the shield and lance of the Lancer. Then I doubt we'll see the Atropos for quite a while and I could easily imagine it being resin (or a resin upgrade kit), released with an expansion that includes Mechanicum knight banners.

I am hoping to see a Poryphion soon though, just as I really like it, though again I could imagine it being a resin release, but on saying that I expected the Cerastus Knights to be resin so maybe I'll be pleasently suprised again.

tneva82 wrote:
The new knight requires FAQ right away. Community article claims save of 6 always. However +1 to save roll is pretty irrelevant if your save is -. Either there would need to be mention of minimum or all - entries should be 7. As it is be hit by volcano cannon they would get no save. Opposite of what article mentions. So either rule is written poorly or community article was in error.

The article is in error anyway, as they haven't a clue as to how Charge orders work. The WarCom isn't exactly trustworthy as rules go. Personally I'd say the +1 doesn't save squat against S 10+, or it would've been worded like "increase their shield level by one step" or somesuch.

What's the issue with Charge as described in the article?

Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Legio Maracas has a certain ring to it.

Adeptus Mariachus

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

Tavis75 wrote:

changemod wrote:
The terminal incorporating rules for Lancers, Acherons and Castigators but not Atropos is pretty damn disappointing.

That does make sense though, the Atropos is quite different to the other cerastus knights in appearance and is a Mechanicum specific knight I believe (rather than being used by knight households), so fluff wise it doesn't really fit for it to be included in a knight household banner.

I would imagine that we will see a dual Acheron\Castigator kit fairly soon, as it should be easier to fit both sets of weapon options on a sprue as they aren't as big as the shield and lance of the Lancer. Then I doubt we'll see the Atropos for quite a while and I could easily imagine it being resin (or a resin upgrade kit), released with an expansion that includes Mechanicum knight banners.

I am hoping to see a Poryphion soon though, just as I really like it, though again I could imagine it being a resin release, but on saying that I expected the Cerastus Knights to be resin so maybe I'll be pleasently suprised again.

Ditto on the Poryphion. I've been on the berge of buying the 40K scale version many times, hopefully a couple of mini Poryphions will arrive some time soon and save me some money.

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

And facebook posts aren't all that acceptable.

Let's say I play against new guy who doesn't know this. Basically all he would have to go is MY WORD. I have heard of that statement(btw 2nd hand...So I actually can't even verify having seen that in my own eyes...) but I could not show it. Opponent would have to trust my word. Hell I have only dakkadakka posts to go with. I'm forced to rely on 2nd hand information by unknown people I don't know in medium(internet) known for containing lots of false information.

GW really needs to put up FAQ and stop this "official answers can be found in random FB posts" policy. It does nothing good.

Have you seen that Hewit's post yourself? Can you provide link to it?

I wonder if we will see any knight banner formations, or possibly a titan formation that has some interplay with knight banners like say 5 warhound scouting formation made for working in closer integration with household support.

in titan death im kinda hoping for

-all hounds scouting formation, (maybe gives scout ability an initial scout move at start, or a garunteed command of battlefield first turn)
-3 reavers 2 hounds "frontline" formation, maybe a bonus to full stride orders
-2 warlord-1-3 hounds hounds get some form of overwatch when enemies get to flanks or rear of warlords, or if hound spots they can turn extra)

Thats barring any new titans showing up in the book

overall id like
-more small upgrades, like the legion specific ones, just as a way to spend the often 10-50 missing points in some lists on things like improved armour
-chaos devotions (maybe going into mutations later on) for traitors, nurgle gets an extra servitor dice or re rolls on fixing, slaanesh either gets improved turning or buffed movement speed, Khorne getting more attacks in close combat and tzeench getting buffed aim or psychic abilities. I think the one fear with bringing in mutations and chaos gods is traitors may just end up getting more options, unless they balance it against imperium getting more experienced crew(vs chaos dedication) and upgraded chasis like improved armour panels (vs chaos mutations)
-more missions and strategems

tneva82 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

And facebook posts aren't all that acceptable.

Let's say I play against new guy who doesn't know this. Basically all he would have to go is MY WORD. I have heard of that statement(btw 2nd hand...So I actually can't even verify having seen that in my own eyes...) but I could not show it. Opponent would have to trust my word. Hell I have only dakkadakka posts to go with. I'm forced to rely on 2nd hand information by unknown people I don't know in medium(internet) known for containing lots of false information.

GW really needs to put up FAQ and stop this "official answers can be found in random FB posts" policy. It does nothing good.

Have you seen that Hewit's post yourself? Can you provide link to it?

There is this discussion on reddit, I bookmarked it as it is interesting and contains some clarifications:

https://www.reddit.com/r/adeptustitanicus/comments/96gbwu/i_designed_the_new_edition_of_adeptus_titanicus/

An official FAQ would indeed be best.

tneva82 wrote:

 Sherrypie wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

There is no official clarification, no, except main designer James Hewitt's word on it in Facebook (saying it's per unit, in his interpretation counting the extra dice by the least movement in the banner). The other factor pointing in this direction is the way knights attack: as they offensively behave like one body (with the caveat of working like Paired weapons in regards to range, modifiers and such), why on Earth would they accrue massively more dice than other bodies? Any singular attack that starts to throw over a dozen dice in this game is suspect, let alone the possibility of a knight banner of insignificant gnats throwing 30+ high strength death around. No, just no.

And facebook posts aren't all that acceptable.

Let's say I play against new guy who doesn't know this. Basically all he would have to go is MY WORD. I have heard of that statement(btw 2nd hand...So I actually can't even verify having seen that in my own eyes...) but I could not show it. Opponent would have to trust my word. Hell I have only dakkadakka posts to go with. I'm forced to rely on 2nd hand information by unknown people I don't know in medium(internet) known for containing lots of false information.

GW really needs to put up FAQ and stop this "official answers can be found in random FB posts" policy. It does nothing good.

Have you seen that Hewit's post yourself? Can you provide link to it?

I asked him, here's a link too: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1438572432880002/permalink/2265558276848076/

Sooooo...Post in closed group...

That's what I'm talking about there not being official clarification. Comment in non-public group is not exactly one that is easy to use as proof. For example link you provided doesn't lead me to the post.

This is why official FAQ in official FAQ place would be needed.

Much like the da jump in T1 situation before codex came where the clarification was from GW facebook comment in thread MONTHS ago. Good luck finding it in few months and indeed I ran into trouble thanks to this when in tournament not only one of opponents but also organizers were unaware of that(no surprise...).

Baffling how there's still not been FAQ seeing GW has improved on that part.

I'm not saying it's an official clarification: I'm just saying that it's the correct way to play and in the spirit of the game's other mechanics, whereas the other, false interpretation produces results that are way off the scale of the game's other parts and thus easily spotted as such. James does not speak from GW authority, but is the one authority on rules I personally value and hold as the primary source. GW itself is currently silent.

An official FAQ might come at some point and clear this, the typo'd firing arc of the Warlord carapace gatlings and other such small touches, and it would be nice, but I see this as an already resolved issue which sadly gets propagated wrong on the official channel as WarCom folks are mostly enthusiastic, happy folk who don't really know any of the rules too deeply.

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

I wondered the same thing from the article given what was discussed about the number of attacks knights get on the charge. It can get pretty nuts watching 3 or 4 Knights bring down a Warlord from some of what I’ve read.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daft Aider wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Legio Maracas has a certain ring to it.

Adeptus Mariachus

“Sound the war rattle!”
*shakashakashakashakashaka*

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

I wondered the same thing from the article given what was discussed about the number of attacks knights get on the charge. It can get pretty nuts watching 3 or 4 Knights bring down a Warlord from some of what I’ve read.

You need to be at the exact distance to get the full attack bonus, and you can only charge in a straight line, not only that, but they also need to pass a 4+ command roll to issue charge order for Questoris banner, if you let this happen it is entirely you that play poorly.

A dual Belicosa WL would be pretty helpless against knights in melee, but it would still take them awhile to actually bring down one WL that way, but then again, it is your fault for not giving them the B(elicosa), you had 2 of it.

I’ve got a Khrone themed list to try with some close combat titans and I’ve got knights in there just to screen my brawler Reaver and Warlord.

Chopstick wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Claims 4 attacks per knight rather than unit when charging 12". Obviously big deal whether 6 knights will attack 6x2+4 or 6x(2+4). Though albeit as far as I know no official clarification how it's supposed to work either. Where's the FAQ for AT :(

I wondered the same thing from the article given what was discussed about the number of attacks knights get on the charge. It can get pretty nuts watching 3 or 4 Knights bring down a Warlord from some of what I’ve read.

You need to be at the exact distance to get the full attack bonus, and you can only charge in a straight line, not only that, but they also need to pass a 4+ command roll to issue charge order for Questoris banner, if you let this happen it is entirely you that play poorly.

A dual Belicosa WL would be pretty helpless against knights in melee, but it would still take them awhile to actually bring down one WL that way, but then again, it is your fault for not giving them the B(elicosa), you had 2 of it.

Then again knights are small. They are more than small enough to hide behind most terrain.

Flipside is when they take down warlord they tend to die as well

Trading 3 knights for a Warlord is a great tradeoff though.

I'm not a gamer so this is probably a naive question, but I have read several times that titan CC weapons are deadly but hard to connect. Can you not just run in a reaver, screened by knights, to increase the chance that one or the other makes it into range? Or if you're especially cunning, have them approach at different vectors so that the enemy warlord must turn to engage one and be vulnerable to the other? Or are the fields of overlapping fire too effective in this game?

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Trading 3 knights for a Warlord is a great tradeoff though.

3 knights isn't enough generally enough though. They will hurt it but then get swatted away. 5 s7 hits doesn#t cut it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWBS wrote:
I'm not a gamer so this is probably a naive question, but I have read several times that titan CC weapons are deadly but hard to connect. Can you not just run in a reaver, screened by knights, to increase the chance that one or the other makes it into range? Or if you're especially cunning, have them approach at different vectors so that the enemy warlord must turn to engage one and be vulnerable to the other? Or are the fields of overlapping fire too effective in this game?

Oh game is nice enough it's not that simple. Plenty of ways to approach it. Both ways are valid. Advantage in having them close to each other is ease of timing at the same time so if you deal with one the other is still alive and ready to mulch. OTOH having them both come from same direction means they can get in each others way and enemy has only one direction to cover. Coming from other directions means once enemy deals with one the other can be in bad angle giving easier time to get into contact but OTOH it means it's harder to sync them to come at same time so enemy can possibly deal with the one coming in first and then turn around and deal with the other.

And on subject of knight vs warlord generally to make charge with lots of attacks you need to move basically twice in a row. First move after warlod has moved into position and often this exposes you(afterall you can't charge from behind building as movement has to be direct line). And then if warlod moves first(remember it's 50-50) if you parked 9" away for maximum extra attacks(+3) warlord can actually back away leaving you outside the range! If you want to remove chance of that you move close enough he can't do that but then if warlord moves first he will either be first firing(possibly landing volcano cannon point blank) or if he doesn't have any ONE gun that would be worth it he might actually close the distance and prevent you from getting extra attacks all together.

Generally what I have found is 1 banner isn't quaranteed to get job done. 2 will do but they will often take heavy casualties. One game one side had 15 knights they did take down 2 reavers and warhounds. But in the end not single knight was alive. 6 died to enemy shooting, 9 died to titan's death throes.

Point wise it was actually pretty much dead even.

tneva82 wrote:

 Fajita Fan wrote:
Trading 3 knights for a Warlord is a great tradeoff though.

3 knights isn't enough generally enough though. They will hurt it but then get swatted away. 5 s7 hits doesn#t cut it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWBS wrote:
I'm not a gamer so this is probably a naive question, but I have read several times that titan CC weapons are deadly but hard to connect. Can you not just run in a reaver, screened by knights, to increase the chance that one or the other makes it into range? Or if you're especially cunning, have them approach at different vectors so that the enemy warlord must turn to engage one and be vulnerable to the other? Or are the fields of overlapping fire too effective in this game?

Oh game is nice enough it's not that simple. Plenty of ways to approach it. Both ways are valid. Advantage in having them close to each other is ease of timing at the same time so if you deal with one the other is still alive and ready to mulch. OTOH having them both come from same direction means they can get in each others way and enemy has only one direction to cover. Coming from other directions means once enemy deals with one the other can be in bad angle giving easier time to get into contact but OTOH it means it's harder to sync them to come at same time so enemy can possibly deal with the one coming in first and then turn around and deal with the other.

And on subject of knight vs warlord generally to make charge with lots of attacks you need to move basically twice in a row. First move after warlod has moved into position and often this exposes you(afterall you can't charge from behind building as movement has to be direct line). And then if warlod moves first(remember it's 50-50) if you parked 9" away for maximum extra attacks(+3) warlord can actually back away leaving you outside the range! If you want to remove chance of that you move close enough he can't do that but then if warlord moves first he will either be first firing(possibly landing volcano cannon point blank) or if he doesn't have any ONE gun that would be worth it he might actually close the distance and prevent you from getting extra attacks all together.

Generally what I have found is 1 banner isn't quaranteed to get job done. 2 will do but they will often take heavy casualties. One game one side had 15 knights they did take down 2 reavers and warhounds. But in the end not single knight was alive. 6 died to enemy shooting, 9 died to titan's death throes.

Point wise it was actually pretty much dead even.

Well, sounds likea lot of decent action and options anyway. Like I say I'm no gamer but I occasionally watch a game of 40K on youtube and I'm dissappointed to see that one or both armies army often hug the edge of the board where it's deployed and remains stationary, shooting at the other guys.

JWBS wrote:
Well, sounds likea lot of decent action and options anyway. Like I say I'm no gamer but I occasionally watch a game of 40K on youtube and I'm dissappointed to see that one or both armies army often hug the edge of the board where it's deployed and remains stationary, shooting at the other guys.

AT has different missions that ensure there is generally some movement to do for all. Add to that decent terrain and while you can go for stand off and shoot it's not neccessarily best strategies. Indeed there's basically 2 reasons to stand still. First fire order to allow you to shoot ONE gun in movement phase rather than move. While it can be nice it's not be all end all. Most useful when enemy titan is NEARLY out of shields and you expect just one more fire from missille launchers to knock down shields. Knocking down shields is big. Apart from the sheer fact that any shooting against shieldless titan HURTS after movement there's repair phase. If your shields are up each roll of 5+ will repair one shield. On warlord with 4 dice to roll at least 1 will be very likely. If all shields are down however first blip requires 6...Which even on 4 dice is not that likely. Thus knocking down shields can be huge difference. So it's more of situational boost. Other times to use first fire would be if you have banner of knights about to charge you, you have first move and can't back out.

Other reason to stand still is emergency repairs giving you immediate extra repair rolls(so doubling # repairs this turn) and with that set with +1. This is pretty much essential to restore shields for titan without shields. In particular for reaver with 3 dice. 3 dice needing 6...Yep not good odds.

So there's 1 situational reason to stand still and 1 forced by opponent. Emergency repair means you either move OR shoot. However emergency repairs on all titans is rather hard to force as titans are so tough generally you need to focus some serious fire but with emergency repairs and voids to full(boost void shield saves) titan can be VERY TOUGH indeed to take down...But then you either move or shoot. So for example one game I had 2 of my warlords bombard his warlord. He was not doing much of anything and moved indeed 4" all game(first turn) and then was locked in place under bombardment. Didn't make much of a dent though. And rest of his army was able to move. I could not lock all his units like that(if I could I would likely win the game).

Basically games I have found are decided on 2 things. Manouvering and reactor management.