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.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I don't think anyone is really stoked about the Harpoon.

I am. Sure, invulnerable saves can make it disappointing against some targets, leviathans for example, but a nice clean rerollable hit and 2+ to wound will be very nice for punching through things more reliably than it’s meltas would alone. It’s also going to do damage more reliably than a low roll on the volcano lance would, even if a high roll on the number of shots would obviously outdo it.

changemod wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I don't think anyone is really stoked about the Harpoon.

I am. Sure, invulnerable saves can make it disappointing against some targets, leviathans for example, but a nice clean rerollable hit and 2+ to wound will be very nice for punching through things more reliably than it’s meltas would alone. It’s also going to do damage more reliably than a low roll on the volcano lance would, even if a high roll on the number of shots would obviously outdo it.

Here, this distinction is important:

Given the option, would you take a second flamer over the Harpoon?

The harpoon should have been allowed the Thunderstrike Gauntlet rule of throwing it at something with 9" of the target model...just to add that extra bit of cool.

Those winged daemons on the left are furies.

People kind of forgot about them as they are gak models with even gakkier rules.




That impaled keeper of secrets is AWESOOOOOME

 Cephalobeard wrote:

changemod wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I don't think anyone is really stoked about the Harpoon.

I am. Sure, invulnerable saves can make it disappointing against some targets, leviathans for example, but a nice clean rerollable hit and 2+ to wound will be very nice for punching through things more reliably than it’s meltas would alone. It’s also going to do damage more reliably than a low roll on the volcano lance would, even if a high roll on the number of shots would obviously outdo it.

Here, this distinction is important:

Given the option, would you take a second flamer over the Harpoon?

Absolutely not, I like the knight’s all rounder balance of weaponry and the harpoon is pretty awesome looking.

I’ll absolutely take three twin cannons if I can though: Never been much of a fan of single use weaponry.

Well, fair enough. I'd do it every time.

wanzer777 wrote:
also where in the ever loving god are the big knights melee weapons?

At the end of each of its legs.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

wanzer777 wrote:
also where in the ever loving god are the big knights melee weapons?

At the end of each of its legs.

Pretty much. At a 4+ WS it's pretty clear the developers had zero intention of getting them into CC as a primary means of combat.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

wanzer777 wrote:
also where in the ever loving god are the big knights melee weapons?

At the end of each of its legs.

Which is even better with Griffith tactics. An extra attack that does three attacks? Yes please!

changemod wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

changemod wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
I don't think anyone is really stoked about the Harpoon.

I am. Sure, invulnerable saves can make it disappointing against some targets, leviathans for example, but a nice clean rerollable hit and 2+ to wound will be very nice for punching through things more reliably than it’s meltas would alone. It’s also going to do damage more reliably than a low roll on the volcano lance would, even if a high roll on the number of shots would obviously outdo it.

Here, this distinction is important:

Given the option, would you take a second flamer over the Harpoon?

Absolutely not, I like the knight’s all rounder balance of weaponry and the harpoon is pretty awesome looking.

I’ll absolutely take three twin cannons if I can though: Never been much of a fan of single use weaponry.

Single use weaponry is fine. I'd definitely take two missiles - though no more. Games are often over and things are very often dead by turn 3, so it's much better to have a second turret firing on turns 1 and 2 rather than a second pair of missiles. The first pair do good things though, especially if you can pick out an important character with them.

I think I prefer the Valiant to the Castellan. If I'm paying for 4 melta guns, I want to be where I can fire them at things. The Valiant's other guns are a better combo with its secondary stuff, basically.

I'm still not sure about the harpoon. 12" range is awful, but rerolls to hit are good and it wounds basically everything on a 2+. I think the flamer is better than the other guns by a wide enough margin that it's ok to have the crazy harpoon. It's just a nice bonus if it hits.

Having said all that I'm still not convinced these guys are more efficient than normal knights. I'm willing to give them a try though.

I'm increasingly convinced that the Castellan and Valiant will be seperate kits, as the Armiger and Helliger appear to be. Clearly think the answer to the "missing" sprue for the Armiger is the one with the autocannons and "household" style armour. Check out the Armiger sprue with weapons - it's also got the admech armour plates and faces:



So that's why the Helliger has different armour. It comes with a different sprue, featuring autocannons and armour plates that are different to the Armiger's ones. And it doesn't come with the Armiger plates at all.

That also seems to be the case for the big guys. Why on earth would you make two near-identical carapaces? Because they come on the sprues with the arm weapons - that's just how the spacing worked out for the sprues. Since they are on that sprue, why not use the opportunity to give two varieties?

The (relatively) good thing about this is it means we can use the Armigers out of forgebane if we want. Actually they aren't much cheaper on ebay than helligers are rumoured to be at full price. But it's annoying if you want admech Helligers, or household Armigers, because they come with kind of the wrong armour.

This is extremely unsurprising. We've known since Forgebane there was a sprue missing for the Armigers--GW themselves actually confirmed it.

We haven't seen an answer yet one way or the other with regards to the Armiger Warglaive sprues being in the box. Hopefully they are, as those sprues shouldn't be too bad.

 BrookM wrote:
I rather like the servo-automata flying overhead, we need more of those.

Totally agree!

what are the relics going to look like?
also will we get the same 1-3 relic strat everyone else gets?

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is extremely unsurprising. We've known since Forgebane there was a sprue missing for the Armigers--GW themselves actually confirmed it.

We haven't seen an answer yet one way or the other with regards to the Armiger Warglaive sprues being in the box. Hopefully they are, as those sprues shouldn't be too bad.

The question is if the Warglaive is a completely separate kit from Helverins, each including one weapon sprue. Given how the Dominus-class knights are largely identical, but have different weapon arms and alternate carapace armor. I am also almost wondering if the Armiger will be two Knights per box. They are always depicted in pairs. I guess that wouldn't be the worst thing.

If knights get to take more than one relic (which I am sure they will) either our relics are going to suck, or it will make knights overpowered.

The average knight list will have 4 knights, give or take. Imagine if half any other army having relics. It would break the game.

My bet, we can take two relic. They just won't be that impressive.

Well the ravager isn’t amazing.

The thing with relics is that only characters can have them, and then only one each (I think...). So to get a second relic you’d need a second LoW detachment.

I wouldn’t be shocked to see an option for a better invulnerable save. Better guns would be interesting indeed.

Mandragola wrote:
Well the ravager isn’t amazing.

The thing with relics is that only characters can have them, and then only one each (I think...). So to get a second relic you’d need a second LoW detachment.

I wouldn’t be shocked to see an option for a better invulnerable save. Better guns would be interesting indeed.

They could easily put in the knight book that any knight may take a relic.
Depends on if they put in household/ freeblade relics as well.

Leaks are out guys, big knights only have a 5++, trying to get more info.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mandragola wrote:
Well the ravager isn’t amazing.

The thing with relics is that only characters can have them, and then only one each (I think...). So to get a second relic you’d need a second LoW detachment.

I wouldn’t be shocked to see an option for a better invulnerable save. Better guns would be interesting indeed.

good thing my plan is Tybalt high king (warden) and Balthazar Kingsward (paladin) each with three armigers.

The more info the better. That's pretty upsetting.

615 for one of the big knights. Castellan apparently

With or without wargear?

Sources would be great for these guys.

Friend of mine is communicating with some store owners that have the leaks. didn't mention if this was an actual codex or just leaks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and yes i'm bugging the crap out of him for armigers leaks

I want to know the basic knight price changes.

 djones520 wrote:
I want to know the basic knight price changes.

/tg/ is saying base Knights are 295, with RFBC down 25p and Avenger down 20pt

Awesome, appreciate it.

Anyone else hoping the Armigers have some knightly faceplates like their bigger cousins? I am not a fan of the mechanical, more suited to Ad Mech loyalty head look. D:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
This is extremely unsurprising. We've known since Forgebane there was a sprue missing for the Armigers--GW themselves actually confirmed it.

We haven't seen an answer yet one way or the other with regards to the Armiger Warglaive sprues being in the box. Hopefully they are, as those sprues shouldn't be too bad.

The question is if the Warglaive is a completely separate kit from Helverins, each including one weapon sprue. Given how the Dominus-class knights are largely identical, but have different weapon arms and alternate carapace armor. I am also almost wondering if the Armiger will be two Knights per box. They are always depicted in pairs. I guess that wouldn't be the worst thing.

The showcased pictures are always the product they'll provide. It's 2 Armigers per box.

The Dominus-class each had a separate picture for each item.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GenRifDrake wrote:
Anyone else hoping the Armigers have some knightly faceplates like their bigger cousins? I am not a fan of the mechanical, more suited to Ad Mech loyalty head look. D:

You're not getting knightly plates from how it looks. They're squires, not knights.

GenRifDrake wrote:
Anyone else hoping the Armigers have some knightly faceplates like their bigger cousins? I am not a fan of the mechanical, more suited to Ad Mech loyalty head look. D:

Shapeways has some good ones.

Got a link? Shapeways is a big place.