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.

Question: have we confirmed if that relic is only for the big knights?

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Agreed. It's confusing my walking fortress has weaker armor than a terminator the size of his toe.

That walking fortress doesn't get wounded by a missile on a 2+.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Agreed. It's confusing my walking fortress has weaker armor than a terminator the size of his toe.

That walking fortress doesn't get wounded by a missile on a 2+.

Again, fair enough.

I wonder if Imperial Knights: Renegade will also have rules for the Valiant. It already has rules for most other walking super-heavies out there.

 BrookM wrote:
I wonder if Imperial Knights: Renegade will also have rules for the Valiant. It already has rules for most other walking super-heavies out there.

I'm not so secretly hoping Renegades retain the ability to double down on primary weapons, so I can rock a double flamer triple auto cannon Dominus into battle.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
I wonder if Imperial Knights: Renegade will also have rules for the Valiant. It already has rules for most other walking super-heavies out there.

I'm not so secretly hoping Renegades retain the ability to double down on primary weapons, so I can rock a double flamer triple auto cannon Dominus into battle.

Someone is obsessed eh? Ehhhh?

Just kidding, but I'm still pining for dual Avengers on a regular Knight myself.

 BrookM wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
I wonder if Imperial Knights: Renegade will also have rules for the Valiant. It already has rules for most other walking super-heavies out there.

I'm not so secretly hoping Renegades retain the ability to double down on primary weapons, so I can rock a double flamer triple auto cannon Dominus into battle.

Someone is obsessed eh? Ehhhh?

Just kidding, but I'm still pining for dual Avengers on a regular Knight myself.

Listen, Listen, I am not ashamed to admit I'm obsessed. The idea of an enraged machine spirit tossing itself into combat, burninating everything and then exploding is the greatest thing I can imagine.

I definitely have been going on a tangent about it for many pages, lol, my apologies. Just very hyped.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Why would Cawl be involved in this Codex at all? I legitimately don't understand.

If he somehow gains an Imperial Knight tag and can be used along them and provide rerolls, im down. Otherwise, confused.

I assume they just mean a "cawl pattern" plasma weapon, so more like the ones that the primaris use

Ah, fair enough.

I need more info. Having a 2+/3+ Knight doesn't sound too shabby.

Not sure if worthwhile. What ap-less guns shoot at one? I would split those if possible.

To clarify here, you're saying having a 2+ or 3++ isn't worthwhile? A two up save when a Knight, as it stands, has no invuln in melee (And things like Custodes spears would currently remove the entire armor save from) or a T28 670pt Monster Knight which has a giant "Shoot me with lascannons" banner on it, would not be worthwhile to have a 3++?

Unless your point is that *stacking* them isn't great, in which case I would say that's a fine point, writing it the way I did was just an easy way to digest the information.

Having both on same. I feel 2+/5+ and 3+4+ would be better. Albeit h2h save help is good point but still. I would spread survivability boosts.

tneva82 wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Why would Cawl be involved in this Codex at all? I legitimately don't understand.

If he somehow gains an Imperial Knight tag and can be used along them and provide rerolls, im down. Otherwise, confused.

I assume they just mean a "cawl pattern" plasma weapon, so more like the ones that the primaris use

Ah, fair enough.

I need more info. Having a 2+/3+ Knight doesn't sound too shabby.

Not sure if worthwhile. What ap-less guns shoot at one? I would split those if possible.

To clarify here, you're saying having a 2+ or 3++ isn't worthwhile? A two up save when a Knight, as it stands, has no invuln in melee (And things like Custodes spears would currently remove the entire armor save from) or a T28 670pt Monster Knight which has a giant "Shoot me with lascannons" banner on it, would not be worthwhile to have a 3++?

Unless your point is that *stacking* them isn't great, in which case I would say that's a fine point, writing it the way I did was just an easy way to digest the information.

Having both on same. I feel 2+/5+ and 3+4+ would be better. Albeit h2h save help is good point but still. I would spread survivability boosts.

I'll be excited to see what we can do.

Here's hoping we get the Crown relic or whatever from 7th that increases the Inv save by 1, and maybe we can have two 4++ Knights at a time.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I definitely have been going on a tangent about it for many pages, lol, my apologies. Just very hyped.

Nononono, never apologize for wanting to be awesome.

Dual wielding would be cool, but buying 2 valiants just to get both conflagration cannons seems like financial suicide I'm personally liking the look of the castellan more so I'm crossing all the mechanical digits I have that the plasma relic is real so that arm doesn't feel like a liability

If given the choice I’d take the 2+ relic over the 4++ invul only becuase knights look like CP hogs and need an army that farms CPs with those CP farming warlord traits.

PiñaColada wrote:
Dual wielding would be cool, but buying 2 valiants just to get both conflagration cannons seems like financial suicide I'm personally liking the look of the castellan more so I'm crossing all the mechanical digits I have that the plasma relic is real so that arm doesn't feel like a liability

If one has dual flamers, that would mean that the other one has dual harpoons..

 BrookM wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I definitely have been going on a tangent about it for many pages, lol, my apologies. Just very hyped.

Nononono, never apologize for wanting to be awesome.

That knight has an extra finger and it is bugging me.

It is also missing a heavy flamer, I envy it for being cheaper than the one I usually field. :(

 BrookM wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
Dual wielding would be cool, but buying 2 valiants just to get both conflagration cannons seems like financial suicide I'm personally liking the look of the castellan more so I'm crossing all the mechanical digits I have that the plasma relic is real so that arm doesn't feel like a liability

If one has dual flamers, that would mean that the other one has dual harpoons..

dual harpoons.... 20 damage a turn ... no 20+2d3 that’s just shy of one shotting a low a turn. Thing would turn baneblades inside out.

Also whoever that is, spot on watamote


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the big knight are looking pushed in general, hoping that means regular knights got some love too

Regular Knights are getting love by virtue of being cheaper.

Personally, I still don't see much use *as it stands* for the smaller ones like Paladins and Errants, but there may be some additional rules yet.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Regular Knights are getting love by virtue of being cheaper.

Personally, I still don't see much use *as it stands* for the smaller ones like Paladins and Errants, but there may be some additional rules yet.

I mean, they have to fix close combat weapons, right? Right?
Also, a few of the super heavy guns on the baneblade chassis got better with the AM codex, so that might still happen

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Regular Knights are getting love by virtue of being cheaper.

Personally, I still don't see much use *as it stands* for the smaller ones like Paladins and Errants, but there may be some additional rules yet.

I’m getting renegade because it’s cheap and making a paladin (Balthazar) and warden with fist (Tybalt)

 Astmeister wrote:

 luke1705 wrote:
Hey sorry if this has been posted already, but do we know if we can take a double volcano variant or a double flamer variant? That's probably going to make or break it for me if we can't double up on the guns

AFAIK there is no real information on this, but it seems like you cannot do this. It would be pretty crazy, when they put two times every gun in the sprues from a business perspective. This costs much more. And there will certainly be no knight variants that you cannot build out of a single sprue.

They did this with the Renegade box. They gave you one of each of the 4 weapon options IIRC but you couldn't build a double gatling cannon, which was all that anyone wanted to do when the box came out. Caused the price of bits to skyrocket for that thing, some people paying upwards of $50 for it on eBay.

And I gotta say, daddy needs a double flamer and double volcano cannon variant. Or maybe just one to rock the 2+/3++ (which is absolutely amazing coming out of an auxiliary super heavy detachment)

PiñaColada wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Regular Knights are getting love by virtue of being cheaper.

Personally, I still don't see much use *as it stands* for the smaller ones like Paladins and Errants, but there may be some additional rules yet.

I mean, they have to fix close combat weapons, right? Right?
Also, a few of the super heavy guns on the baneblade chassis got better with the AM codex, so that might still happen

It's possible, but any gun buffs just make the Crusader better by default.

What needs to be fixed about the Reaper and Thunderstrike gauntlet?

Personally, both the chassis and most of the weapons going down in point cost is already a massive fix for the army.

 BrookM wrote:
What needs to be fixed about the Reaper and Thunderstrike gauntlet?

Personally, both the chassis and most of the weapons going down in point cost is already a massive fix for the army.

They're okay. But so much worse than just more guns. The feet are actually pretty good so the justification for close combat weapons isn't really there IMO

Knights should have 6 attacks and the feet should be 2x number of attacks. So you get as many feet attacks but the weapons get substantially better

Points are not confirmed yet, let’s not count chickens before they hatch. For all we know the armiger is down to but. It the guns ect aren’t free or cheap anymore. Ect ect.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Regular Knights are getting love by virtue of being cheaper.

Personally, I still don't see much use *as it stands* for the smaller ones like Paladins and Errants, but there may be some additional rules yet.

I mean, they have to fix close combat weapons, right? Right?
Also, a few of the super heavy guns on the baneblade chassis got better with the AM codex, so that might still happen

It's possible, but any gun buffs just make the Crusader better by default.

What if point gap between them increases?

Plus in theory if gw was competent they could up the h2h weapon stats

 Cephalobeard wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Regular Knights are getting love by virtue of being cheaper.

Personally, I still don't see much use *as it stands* for the smaller ones like Paladins and Errants, but there may be some additional rules yet.

I mean, they have to fix close combat weapons, right? Right?
Also, a few of the super heavy guns on the baneblade chassis got better with the AM codex, so that might still happen

It's possible, but any gun buffs just make the Crusader better by default.

The different classes of those things really bug me. There's just one model with a bunch of arm options. There's only one combination that's illegal and that's only because they're largely made out of the same set of parts. The whole thing could easily be one datasheet and it would probably make it easier to tell that the arm options themselves just need to be valid options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PiñaColada wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
What needs to be fixed about the Reaper and Thunderstrike gauntlet?

Personally, both the chassis and most of the weapons going down in point cost is already a massive fix for the army.

They're okay. But so much worse than just more guns. The feet are actually pretty good so the justification for close combat weapons isn't really there IMO

Knights should have 6 attacks and the feet should be 2x number of attacks. So you get as many feet attacks but the weapons get substantially better

The melee weapons could just be free or like.... 5 points or something. They actually do have specific uses over the feet, just not uses worth paying for.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 BrookM wrote:
I wonder if Imperial Knights: Renegade will also have rules for the Valiant. It already has rules for most other walking super-heavies out there.

I'm not so secretly hoping Renegades retain the ability to double down on primary weapons, so I can rock a double flamer triple auto cannon Dominus into battle.

This would be spectacular

gendoikari87 wrote:

Also whoever that is, spot on watamote

https://www.instagram.com/tsuruko/?hl=en

There’s some people claiming on tg that the armiger autocannons are equivalent to a reaper autocannon, but I’m assuming that’s trolling.

Hopefully we'll see a Helverin preview tomorrow.