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.

Hello all. Asking for your help here. I'm trying to decide what to flesh out next. I have been running a heavy EDT/MT list with lots of plasma drops. However its day seems to have past. Between the increase in points cost for plasma, rule of 3, and Turn 1 deep strike restrictions it just doesn't get the bang for its buck like it used to. (Might just be my meta which has a very heavy focus on 3++ saves and heavy mechanized forces).

I had planned on switch to a mech guard force featuring Leman Russes, Hellhounds, and Vultures. Then the new knight codex drop and I was blown away by the Armiger Warglaive changes. Dropping around 60 points from its previous cost and adding mini-"stomp" profile to its melee weapon made it much much more viable then I had anticipated. Add In some quite useful house "doctrines" and relics, so now I have been tinkering with a force focused more on fielding a horde of these new walkers supported by the new Knight-Preceptor.

Lets break down the Pros. I will be comparing vs the LR Conqueror which imho is the best of the LR variants.

Armiger Warglaive

Pros:
Faster 14" movement
5++ Invul vs shooting
3+ WS/BS
Excellent Melee with either 4 str 12 -3 D3, or 8 str 6 -2 D1
High damage long range melta.
Reroll hits in melee with (Krast)
Reroll 1s to hit with Knight-Preceptor
Relic to boost BS/WS +1 vs a Target.

Leman Russ Conquerer

Pros:
1 Point Higher Toughness
Better Main gun. 48" Range vs 30". Average 7 shots (9 with Catchan) vs Average 2, Reroll Hits within 24"(30" Vostryn) Less Ap -2 vs -4 and DD3 vs DD6
Cheaper 9 points base.
Access to great IG stratagems. (+1 BS cadian/Vostrian)
Objective secured in spearhead.
More CP (Armiger deny access to Super-heavy detachment CP unless 3 full-sized knights with them)

Both of them have lots of good points. Ill list some of the key issues.
1. Armigers while being good in melee still lose to dedicated elite melee units as they have only their +3 armor save in melee and Thunderhammers and equivalents make short work of that. And they need to get in melee to make the best use of them.
2. The 1 Toughness of the LR is a big deal. There are a multitude of S7/8 weapons out there and the LR toughness 8 reduces their effectiveness by 33%/25%. That being said the 5++ invul save of the Armiger rates better vs weapon with an AP -4 or S9+ Ap -3 (I think). (My math has a Plasma doing slightly better vs an Armiger doing .89 damage per hit vs .83 damage against an LR. Melta does better vs LR doing 1.75 damage per hit and 1.55 vs the Armiger) at range.

I believe they do fundamentally different things and work in different kinds of armies. Personally, I believe Warglaives are best used agaisnt the opponent vehicles, shoting your melta before charging them, and walkers, or big meele units like dark eldar Thalos, you don't want them agaisnt a horde, even with his second profile.

I haven't used my Warglaive, but I'm planning to use it as an auxiliary of my Adeptus Custodes force. When I try it I'll share my impresions with you.

Imo if you are using warglaives you should keep them together as if they are a unit. There are a number of stratagems that revolve around them staying together. I agree that a single AWG isn't a big threat to horde units, but 3 sure is.

If one isn't a threat to hordes, then three aren't either. One armiger equates to around 40 cultists (for example), so three equates to 120. Good luck getting through that with three armigers!

 DoomMouse wrote:
If one isn't a threat to hordes, then three aren't either. One armiger equates to around 40 cultists (for example), so three equates to 120. Good luck getting through that with three armigers!

It’s almost like these are very different units with very different roles!

My personal opinion is that Warglaives are pretty useless: they should have been the cheaper knights used to fill out detachments, with just enough damage output/staying power that they weren't a tax unit. As they are, a single Warglaive is basically a worse Contemptor dreadnought with less variety and any more than one Warglaive is a waste since you could just get a bigger Knight.

 mrhappyface wrote:
My personal opinion is that Warglaives are pretty useless: they should have been the cheaper knights used to fill out detachments, with just enough damage output/staying power that they weren't a tax unit. As they are, a single Warglaive is basically a worse Contemptor dreadnought with less variety and any more than one Warglaive is a waste since you could just get a bigger Knight.

Agreed. They just seem like slightly larger, more expensive dreadnoughts with way worse weapons. I'd take a leviathan over a warglaive any day.

At least with Armigers you can take up to 3 of them and not pay either an HQ tax or a CP penalty.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
At least with Armigers you can take up to 3 of them and not pay either an HQ tax or a CP penalty.

Or just take 3 Leman Russes +30pt HQ tax and get +1CP and Obsec on your tanks (not to mention regimental doctrines). Or take 3 LR and a Command Tank for all that plus orders.

Armigers are fast Dreadnoughts, which is exactly what we get with their stats. Not sure why people think they are different or are suppose to be different. The Warglaive is exactly like a SM Dreadnought, only faster, with more range, a better melee weapon, and an Invul save. The Helverin is a Mortis Dreadnought that is faster, with more range, have an invul, etc.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Armigers are fast Dreadnoughts, which is exactly what we get with their stats. Not sure why people think they are different or are suppose to be different. The Warglaive is exactly like a SM Dreadnought, only faster, with more range, a better melee weapon, and an Invul save. The Helverin is a Mortis Dreadnought that is faster, with more range, have an invul, etc.

SJ

It's faster, I'll give you that but the Warglaives are more comparable to Contemptors than regular dreadnoughts, which mean they have varying range differences depending on weapons, their melee weapon is worse and their invul is worse and they're still more expensive!

Armigers covers some things that guard traditionally suck at, mainly speed and cqc. Meanwhile more Russe's plays to guard strengths.

It's up to you to decide if you need to cover the weaknesses or double down on what you do best.

For what it's worth, I got 4 for cheap so I plan on giving them a try. Mainly plan to use them with Admech but I don't see them being bad with IG either. If Yu want to run Armigers, I would look at bringing IG vehicles that are T7 as well to mess with target priority. Especially hellhounds, I'd imagine they would work very well with warglaives as an aggressive element you slam forward, since between the hellhounds and the warglaives you cover most potential targets. Throw some infantry in chimeras behind them or have Stormtroopers meet them on the other side of the board could make for a fun list.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Armigers are fast Dreadnoughts, which is exactly what we get with their stats. Not sure why people think they are different or are suppose to be different. The Warglaive is exactly like a SM Dreadnought, only faster, with more range, a better melee weapon, and an Invul save. The Helverin is a Mortis Dreadnought that is faster, with more range, have an invul, etc.

SJ

It's faster, I'll give you that but the Warglaives are more comparable to Contemptors than regular dreadnoughts, which mean they have varying range differences depending on weapons, their melee weapon is worse and their invul is worse and they're still more expensive!

I don't think you are up to date on Warglaives my friend they are basically the same price as it now clocks in at 164 points. Comparing it to a Contemptor the Armiger has the same toughness 1 less str, Both have a x2 -3 for D3 but the Armiger now has a 2nd profile that doubles its attacks to 8 but only S -2 D1. The Contemptor's invul save works in melee which does make it better and it has a higher BS/WS by 1. Its mult-imelta is strictly worse however as the Armiger's Themal Lance has 6" longer range and d3 shots and is Assault not Heavy. Its also 33% faster then a Contemptor.

Arguable who has the better Doctrine as the salamander is one is amazing for Contemptors.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Armigers are fast Dreadnoughts, which is exactly what we get with their stats. Not sure why people think they are different or are suppose to be different. The Warglaive is exactly like a SM Dreadnought, only faster, with more range, a better melee weapon, and an Invul save. The Helverin is a Mortis Dreadnought that is faster, with more range, have an invul, etc.

SJ

It's faster, I'll give you that but the Warglaives are more comparable to Contemptors than regular dreadnoughts, which mean they have varying range differences depending on weapons, their melee weapon is worse and their invul is worse and they're still more expensive!

Put their stat lines side by side, an Armiger is identical to a SM Dreadnought except for speed and weapons.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Armigers are fast Dreadnoughts, which is exactly what we get with their stats. Not sure why people think they are different or are suppose to be different. The Warglaive is exactly like a SM Dreadnought, only faster, with more range, a better melee weapon, and an Invul save. The Helverin is a Mortis Dreadnought that is faster, with more range, have an invul, etc.

SJ

It's faster, I'll give you that but the Warglaives are more comparable to Contemptors than regular dreadnoughts, which mean they have varying range differences depending on weapons, their melee weapon is worse and their invul is worse and they're still more expensive!

Put their stat lines side by side, an Armiger is identical to a SM Dreadnought except for speed and weapons.

SJ

Except a regular dreadnought is much cheaper, a Contemptor is in a similar price range.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Armigers are fast Dreadnoughts, which is exactly what we get with their stats. Not sure why people think they are different or are suppose to be different. The Warglaive is exactly like a SM Dreadnought, only faster, with more range, a better melee weapon, and an Invul save. The Helverin is a Mortis Dreadnought that is faster, with more range, have an invul, etc.

SJ

It's faster, I'll give you that but the Warglaives are more comparable to Contemptors than regular dreadnoughts, which mean they have varying range differences depending on weapons, their melee weapon is worse and their invul is worse and they're still more expensive!

Put their stat lines side by side, an Armiger is identical to a SM Dreadnought except for speed and weapons.

SJ

Except a regular dreadnought is much cheaper, a Contemptor is in a similar price range.

What part of faster and better weapon doesn’t mean “should cost more”? What part of cost should mean “use the wrong stat line”?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Armigers are fast Dreadnoughts, which is exactly what we get with their stats. Not sure why people think they are different or are suppose to be different. The Warglaive is exactly like a SM Dreadnought, only faster, with more range, a better melee weapon, and an Invul save. The Helverin is a Mortis Dreadnought that is faster, with more range, have an invul, etc.

SJ

It's faster, I'll give you that but the Warglaives are more comparable to Contemptors than regular dreadnoughts, which mean they have varying range differences depending on weapons, their melee weapon is worse and their invul is worse and they're still more expensive!

Put their stat lines side by side, an Armiger is identical to a SM Dreadnought except for speed and weapons.

SJ

Except a regular dreadnought is much cheaper, a Contemptor is in a similar price range.

What part of faster and better weapon doesn’t mean “should cost more”? What part of cost should mean “use the wrong stat line”?

SJ

Because comparing an Armiger and a regular Dreadnought isn't fair due to the price disparity; the Armiger should be better than a regular Dread. A fairer comparison is between the Armiger and a Contemptor Dread due to their similar price tag and their similar roll; in that comparison a Contemptor is much better for the same number of points.

Dude, you have no clue what you’re talking about. I’m comparing statlines and you are comparing pricing. WtF?

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Dude, you have no clue what you’re talking about. I’m comparing statlines and you are comparing pricing. WtF?

SJ

Let me try to simplify it for you:

We have three units all with semi-similar stat lines and the same function in the game; the Dreadnought, the Armiger and the Contemptor.

Now you say the Armiger is better than the Dreadnought because it has better movement, more wounds, an invul and better weapons, I can't fault you on that. However, I say that the Armiger should be better than a Dreadnought because it costs much more.

A far better comparison would be with the Contemptor since they cost the same amount (give or take) and have a similar statline.


You can compare statlines but you also need to look at the price of the unit, I don't understand how this concept is new to you.

Who cares about Contemptor Dreadnoughts? I mean really?

The better comparison for these guys in a Guard army are Shield Captains. Both have a combination of mobility, shooting, and assault that isn't really present in Guard. I'm not so sure Armigers surpass the Shield Captains here, but they're fun little guys.

Should they have made Armigers takable as 1 in a Heavy slot or 1-3 in Superheavy slot? Would it have made any difference in their usability?

 Stormonu wrote:
Should they have made Armigers takable as 1 in a Heavy slot or 1-3 in Superheavy slot? Would it have made any difference in their usability?

There's not a Knights HQ choice so if Armigers were Heavy Support, you couldn't actually field a detachment of them.

meleti wrote:
Who cares about Contemptor Dreadnoughts? I mean really?

I would always choose three contemptor mortis dreads over two warglaives. 24 shots with twin autocannons, hitting on 2+, 48" range outperform 2D3 thermal lance shots hitting on 3+. The contemptors get chapter tactics as well, RG -1 to hit for example.

Buy the models you like the most. Simples.

 p5freak wrote:

meleti wrote:
Who cares about Contemptor Dreadnoughts? I mean really?

I would always choose three contemptor mortis dreads over two warglaives. 24 shots with twin autocannons, hitting on 2+, 48" range outperform 2D3 thermal lance shots hitting on 3+. The contemptors get chapter tactics as well, RG -1 to hit for example.

I just meant Contemptor Dreadnoughts, which aren't exactly defining the competitive meta right now. But the same applies to Contemptor Mortis I suppose. Once people start taking Contemptor Mortis dreads in all their top table tournament lists I'll take notice. I really doubt that will ever happen, but I suppose anything's possible.

Anyway, back to what the OP is requesting, you aren't splashing Contemptor Mortis dreads into a Guard army. Or Contemptors, really. Space Marine HQs being fairly expensive glorified tax doesn't help in this regard. But you are taking Shield Captains, so they're the comparison you should be making for Armiger Warglaives.

 mrhappyface wrote:

Now you say the Armiger is better than the Dreadnought because it has better movement, more wounds, an invul and better weapons, I can't fault you on that. However, I say that the Armiger should be better than a Dreadnought because it costs much more.

A Dreadnought clocks in at 117-177pts, an Armiger is 164-187pts. For that you get...

- The Armiger is a better CC platform due to its blinding speed and its dual profile.
- Has a 5++ invuln.
- No penalty to move and shoot, very nice.
- 50% more wounds than a dread.
- Weapons is personal taste, but Armiger does mixed threat better, D3 dakka better, while Dread does ranged AT better, probably.
- The dread generates CP in a detachment, which is a big deal actually, and the biggest weakness of the Armiger.

The Armiger is much better than a basicbitch dreadnought, and costs only a little more if any - in fact a top of the line Warglaive and Dreadnought cost exactly the same - 177pts...

How did this get from from comparing against Leman Russes to Dreadnoughts and Shield captains lol.

mrhappyface I think you are being very disingenuous in your comparison of a Contemptor to a Wargliave. To sum it up the Dread as +1/+1 BS and WS, +1 ST. The Armigar is faster, more wounds, better gun, more versatile in melee. To be honest the +1 ST bonus of the Contemptor only matters vs T7 models and while the Improved WS/BS is nice I'm not sure it makes up for all the other advantages the Armigar has.

p5freak. Going to have to disagree here. Also its not a real fair comparison the Mortis would be must more comparable to the Armiger Helrevin then the Warglaive. The Mortis is great for clearing infantry but does diddly vs harder targets where as the Wargliave is pretty versatile against both in the new codex which is why I'm taking a 2nd look at it.

Also I think yall are missing the reason I was comparing LRs to Armigers. They are "Spamable" you can take up to 9 of each variant. Contemptors and shield captains are limited to 3.

Now comparing the Shield Captain to the Warglaive. Hmm. This one is a tough call. The shield captain has I think the lead in dealing with Swarms of infantry but I think the Armigar is much better vs harder targets. Durability wise The Shield captains probably have the advantage with their 3++ relics other wise I think the edge goes to the Armigers.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Buy the models you like the most. Simples.

Nah we come here to win and get angry!

I'd be hard pressed to say a melta weapon is better than a kheres assault cannon hitting on 2s. Not to mention a mortis with 4 lascannons or 4 autocannons is pretty good against tough targets.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
I'd be hard pressed to say a melta weapon is better than a kheres assault cannon hitting on 2s. Not to mention a mortis with 4 lascannons or 4 autocannons is pretty good against tough targets.

Sigh. Okay lets compare the 2. A contemptor with Kheres and DCC vs an Armiger warglaive. Now The advantage of the contemptor is its higher BS/WS right? The problem is that its weapons are heavy and only 24". So its going to be moving which means it has the heavy -1 to hit most of the time making them the same BS as the Armiger's weapon is assault. Now vs infantry in a shooting battle the edge goes the Contemptor with its 6 shots...usually. vs multiwound models with better armor save the edge swings actually back to the thermal lance. Vs vehicles with exception of Quantum shielded ones the armiger trimuphs In melee the Armiger wins or ties vs everything with the exception of T7 models. And do to the Armiger superior speed its more likely to get both ranged attacks and melee attacks in the same round.

Now a Quadlascannon mortis is deadlier to vehicles (and 25% more expensive) and a Double kheres is deadlier to infantry (And 8 points cheaper) However they still run into the fact your limited to 3 total of them(Cause I believe even if you use BA, SW, and SM versions they still use the same datasheet) and can't *switch-hit* so to speak.