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.

 Trickshot wrote:

1. it was done for balance purposes.

2. it's cute how people think their individual $$$ counts for much, meanwhile GW continues to make record profits.

people will still rush out and buy these models regardless what a vocal minority think. they are doing it like so, because the controversy is less this way.

it's not gonna limit any significant sales.

How cute some people still think gw can or even care about balance as it's been repeatedly shown to be false.

I personally think that knights having few CP would be a fair drawback but the problem is that the rule only really punishes pure knight lists. Anyone willing to soup is just going to add 180 points of guard and most of those issues are mitigated.

At the very least I think that 3 big knights should give 5 cp, the cheapest way you can get that is 1062 points (three gallants with no extra equipment) so it's not like you could fit two of those detachments at 2k/1750 points anyways.

PiñaColada wrote:
I personally think that knights having few CP would be a fair drawback but the problem is that the rule only really punishes pure knight lists. Anyone willing to soup is just going to add 180 points of guard and most of those issues are mitigated.

At the very least I think that 3 big knights should give 5 cp, the cheapest way you can get that is 1062 points (three gallants with no extra equipment) so it's not like you could fit two of those detachments at 2k/1750 points anyways.

Honestly, the only thing getting punished is people running Armigers as cheap ways to fill out the Superheavy Detachment.

Did we really expect them to let us do that?

Going back to an earlier rumour - the Datasheet Cards reference a Knight Preceptor:

Yup. They get Canis Rex's las weapon and grant a reroll hit rolls of 1 within 6" to Armigers.

The Preceptor datasheet is out there.

Mathhammer wise the Helverines are not worth than some bigger knights in points per damage against GEQ

Helverine 40 ppd
Crusader with RFBC 34 ppd
Warden 39 ppd

And that is just shooting and melee would even make normal knights much better.

 Kanluwen wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
I personally think that knights having few CP would be a fair drawback but the problem is that the rule only really punishes pure knight lists. Anyone willing to soup is just going to add 180 points of guard and most of those issues are mitigated.

At the very least I think that 3 big knights should give 5 cp, the cheapest way you can get that is 1062 points (three gallants with no extra equipment) so it's not like you could fit two of those detachments at 2k/1750 points anyways.

Honestly, the only thing getting punished is people running Armigers as cheap ways to fill out the Superheavy Detachment.

Did we really expect them to let us do that?[

Considering that's how GW sold them to ujs back in this article in March,yeah. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/12/unit-focus-armiger-warglaivesgw-homepage-post-4/
From the article: Unlike other Lords of War, you’ll be able to fit up to three Armigers in a single slot, making filling out a Super-heavy Detachment – and netting three Command Points – easy!

Look, I'm not too upset about it, but it's ridiculous to say that it was an unrealistic expactation considering how armigers role on the battlefield was framed around their release.

Is it wrong that I want a Crusader with a Las Impulsor and Avenger Gatling Cannon?

 Kanluwen wrote:


Did we really expect them to let us do that?

Very specifically yes, that appeared to be the main -point- of Armigers.

Thankfully they have secondary duty as a heavy walker for mechanicus.

So it’s looking like FW Castigator knights don’t help fill out the Knight Lance requirements then? If so that is ridiculously lame. My guess is FW would have to put out a FAQ saying they count towards it.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
The Preceptor datasheet is out there.

Spoiler:

Hey look at that... they added <SWARM> to the <INFANTRY> tag. No more getting stuck by scarabs or rippers.

 dan2026 wrote:
I think it's probably fair that Armigers don't give CP.

It's wouldn't be fair if you could spam a ton of them for super cheap Lord of War detachments.

That makes no sense though.

522pts for 3CP from small giant robots, or
180pts for 5CP from guardsmen

I could understand if the rule said 1 big knight per detachment, but 3 is nuts when they specifically just introduced a model to make list building more granular.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Is it wrong that I want a Crusader with a Las Impulsor and Avenger Gatling Cannon?

Yes, as from what I can see the impulsor is a straight downgrade vs a RFBC or thermal cannon. I guess you could make the argument that it’s good to have the option of two modes, but not when the price for doing so is such a drop in power.

That said, if it’s cheap-ish and you’re running armigers it’s not an awful knight. I think it’s a bad main weapon, but it does look good, and the buffs could even out the loss of effectiveness.

I don't play knights, but I do find the CP restriction odd and a bit arbitrary, but I "may" understand it. I think it may be based around the general strength of Knights (perhaps each stratagem is quite good because it benefits such a strong unit?). However, the idea of "cheap" Super Heavy Detachments seems a bit odd. The Armigers, even three of them is still more cost than any of the "cheap" battalions run by other armies. At most you would have farmed an additional 12 CPs if you went for what, 12 armigers in a 2000 point list or so? It's not akin to the 20+ that some Guard versions can make up.

Just seems a bit odd, made moreso by the recent bump in CPs for other armies.

Well gw wants knight players to also buy ig

tneva82 wrote:
Well gw wants knight players to also buy ig

bingo

PiñaColada wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
I personally think that knights having few CP would be a fair drawback but the problem is that the rule only really punishes pure knight lists. Anyone willing to soup is just going to add 180 points of guard and most of those issues are mitigated.

At the very least I think that 3 big knights should give 5 cp, the cheapest way you can get that is 1062 points (three gallants with no extra equipment) so it's not like you could fit two of those detachments at 2k/1750 points anyways.

Honestly, the only thing getting punished is people running Armigers as cheap ways to fill out the Superheavy Detachment.

Did we really expect them to let us do that?[

Considering that's how GW sold them to ujs back in this article in March,yeah. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/03/12/unit-focus-armiger-warglaivesgw-homepage-post-4/
From the article: Unlike other Lords of War, you’ll be able to fit up to three Armigers in a single slot, making filling out a Super-heavy Detachment – and netting three Command Points – easy!

Look, I'm not too upset about it, but it's ridiculous to say that it was an unrealistic expactation considering how armigers role on the battlefield was framed around their release.

I think the relevant point is FILLING OUT a SHD.
A Full SHD has 5 slots, so 3 big knights & then up to 6 Armigers for the other 2 slots.

Mandragola wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
Is it wrong that I want a Crusader with a Las Impulsor and Avenger Gatling Cannon?

Yes, as from what I can see the impulsor is a straight downgrade vs a RFBC or thermal cannon. I guess you could make the argument that it’s good to have the option of two modes, but not when the price for doing so is such a drop in power.

That said, if it’s cheap-ish and you’re running armigers it’s not an awful knight. I think it’s a bad main weapon, but it does look good, and the buffs could even out the loss of effectiveness.

This, like the Valiant is more of a rule cool. It looks like it is best served hanging out with that max-shot fortification.

Rodzaju wrote:


I think the relevant point is FILLING OUT a SHD.
A Full SHD has 5 slots, so 3 big knights & then up to 6 Armigers for the other 2 slots.

That would be relevant only if all 5 slots was required for cp. Which still would be stupid

Rodzaju wrote:


I think the relevant point is FILLING OUT a SHD.
A Full SHD has 5 slots, so 3 big knights & then up to 6 Armigers for the other 2 slots.

I really don't think that's the point of the sentence since that doesn't affect ones ability to net 3cp at all, thus negating the other half of that sentence entirely. Point is, even if that was their intention it was either written poorly or in a deliberately confusing way to garner more sales. Neither of those options are all that great.

I feel as though the Knight lance is a knee jerk reaction to people farming CP with multiple cheap detatchments like the 180pt guard detachment that gives 5cp. The problem is it screws over a pure knight list which with the rule of 3 would have a maximum of 2 detachments under 2000pts. I believe they should change the knight lance to a entirely separate detachment than the superheavy detachment and thats how you get your free character upgrade, otherwise you have to use the strat.

Gee. Let's react to 180pts farms by making them mandatory.

Actually that does sound very gw like...

The point of the knight lance rule is to stop you getting 3cp for bringing 2 armigers. Armigers aren’t cp batteries. That’s fine.

So you can take a knight on his own as an auxiliary detachment. 0cp and not a character.

Add a couple of armigers and you still don’t get 0 cps but you can make a knight a character.

Add two proper knights and you get your cps.

The IG battalion is not fine. That doesn’t mean other stuff should be broken to keep up. And you can get 3 knights for ~1200pts, so plenty of room for other stuff, including a battalion of anything but custodes if you want.

Mandragola wrote:
The point of the knight lance rule is to stop you getting 3cp for bringing 2 armigers. Armigers aren’t cp batteries. That’s fine.

So you can take a knight on his own as an auxiliary detachment. 0cp and not a character.

Add a couple of armigers and you still don’t get 0 cps but you can make a knight a character.

Add two proper knights and you get your cps.

The IG battalion is not fine. That doesn’t mean other stuff should be broken to keep up. And you can get 3 knights for ~1200pts, so plenty of room for other stuff, including a battalion of anything but custodes if you want.

You’re calling a hypothetical 3CP for the same points range guard can farm 15 “keeping up”?

Danit wrote:
I feel as though the Knight lance is a knee jerk reaction to people farming CP with multiple cheap detatchments like the 180pt guard detachment that gives 5cp. The problem is it screws over a pure knight list which with the rule of 3 would have a maximum of 2 detachments under 2000pts. I believe they should change the knight lance to a entirely separate detachment than the superheavy detachment and thats how you get your free character upgrade, otherwise you have to use the strat.

uh.... exactly how PURE is anyone making a knight list? i can't think of any good knight lists without at least a battalion of guard. Screens are mandatory this edition.

So, as i was playing around with ideas, i kept finding myself wanting to take 3 Knights and spend 9CP on them before the game even began due to relics (essentially to get 2 extra relics, it's going to cost you 6CP - as you need to spend 3 on the relics and 3 on making 2 Knights characters to then be able to take them...)

As a result, i'm prob going to drop my idea of 1 autocannon Armiger for a 2nd Guard Battalion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Danit wrote:
I feel as though the Knight lance is a knee jerk reaction to people farming CP with multiple cheap detatchments like the 180pt guard detachment that gives 5cp. The problem is it screws over a pure knight list which with the rule of 3 would have a maximum of 2 detachments under 2000pts. I believe they should change the knight lance to a entirely separate detachment than the superheavy detachment and thats how you get your free character upgrade, otherwise you have to use the strat.

uh.... exactly how PURE is anyone making a knight list? i can't think of any good knight lists without at least a battalion of guard. Screens are mandatory this edition.

Depends completely. Knights don't have to worry too much about screens as they can fall back and still shoot and charge without issue.

If they need a screen to protect from smites, then 1 or 2 Armigers can easily tick that box as it's a massive 24 wounds to chew through beforehand. Expensive screen, but, we also won't be seeing dozens of first turn charges either.

changemod wrote:

Mandragola wrote:
The point of the knight lance rule is to stop you getting 3cp for bringing 2 armigers. Armigers aren’t cp batteries. That’s fine.

So you can take a knight on his own as an auxiliary detachment. 0cp and not a character.

Add a couple of armigers and you still don’t get 0 cps but you can make a knight a character.

Add two proper knights and you get your cps.

The IG battalion is not fine. That doesn’t mean other stuff should be broken to keep up. And you can get 3 knights for ~1200pts, so plenty of room for other stuff, including a battalion of anything but custodes if you want.

You’re calling a hypothetical 3CP for the same points range guard can farm 15 “keeping up”?

That’s exactly the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m saying that just because IG get tons of cps it doesn’t mean that everyone should. One thing being broken is not a reason to break everything.

FWIW I think there’s a decent case for using admech for your battalion, rather than IG. A couple of enginseers and 15 rangers or vanguard come to just over 200pts. You get to use the knight of the cog stratagem, which I like, and the enginseers can patch up your knights a bit. Stygies guys can infiltrate to make a nuisance of themselves.

Armigers shouldn’t really be lords of war. They are, so that they can be taken in an IK army that’s made of super-heavy detachments. But you don’t get the credit for taking 3 superheavies unless you take real superheavies.

Mandragola wrote:

changemod wrote:

Mandragola wrote:
The point of the knight lance rule is to stop you getting 3cp for bringing 2 armigers. Armigers aren’t cp batteries. That’s fine.

So you can take a knight on his own as an auxiliary detachment. 0cp and not a character.

Add a couple of armigers and you still don’t get 0 cps but you can make a knight a character.

Add two proper knights and you get your cps.

The IG battalion is not fine. That doesn’t mean other stuff should be broken to keep up. And you can get 3 knights for ~1200pts, so plenty of room for other stuff, including a battalion of anything but custodes if you want.

You’re calling a hypothetical 3CP for the same points range guard can farm 15 “keeping up”?

That’s exactly the opposite of what I’m saying. I’m saying that just because IG get tons of cps it doesn’t mean that everyone should. One thing being broken is not a reason to break everything.

No, it’s pretty much exactly what you’re saying. You’re implying that 3CP for 540 points is broken by drawing comparison to 15CP for 540 points.

tneva82 wrote:
Gee. Let's react to 180pts farms by making them mandatory.

Actually that does sound very gw like...

Those 180 pts cost how much money?

I know it is probably not all that effective, but I am looking at using a little over 500 pts of Ad Mech(primarily Rangers and a couple Techpriests) with my 3 Big Knights and filling up the rest with either a Neutron Donkeytank or an Armiger or two. Sure, the amount of Ad Mech takes another Knight out of my list, but it is two squads of Arquebus Rangers and a big squad of Arc Rifle Rangers. So they are at least useful, especially the Snipers. The crappy thing is I am not going to run Questor Mechanicus (I am actually looking at Mortan or Griffith). I suppose I could go with a Raven offshoot (which would be very fitting for my dark green color scheme I have planned).