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.

Big problem with gallant is though he#s cc exclusive in shooty edition. Turn 1 he won't be doing anything worthwhile while even then too many ways enemy can stop it doing anything worthwhile. Chaff can't prevent guns hitting target. Gallant they can prevent charging anything but chaff though.

Plus i find myself often either finding better use for 2 cp or there's 3 other relics i want to take(and if i have cp battery ig commander can take max 2 knight relic anyway)

I actually think paragon gauntlet is best served on a warden or errant where you won't waste the reaper chainsword (because there is no reason to use any other CC weapo) like a gallant.

That is good point. Those weapons are already bit of dubious due to stomp attacks and with relic fist you pay for chainsword you don\t use like ever.

That's been where I have been planning to put that relic if I take it. But it's hard to fit relic fists when there's Cawl's wrath, 2+ save and endless fury. Even sanctuary and banner inviolate are cool. Been thinking of gallant+warden+errant trio with banner inviolate and sanctuary amongst them. Landstrider warlord trait and that would be fun little h2h oriented raven lance I might play sometimes. All 3 rerolling 1's in fight phase and +2" to advance and charge moves and CHAAAARGE!

To me, the reason to take that paragon gauntlet right now is because knights are everywhere.. And it is just so good at killing them!

Wardens just make such good generalists and the guantlet let's them deal with other knights way easy if you get the charge.

Agreed, I would be more inclined to take the Paragon Gauntlet on a Warden or a Gallant if there were more Knights and Titanic units in my meta or if I decided I wanted Raven's extra mobility and didn't need Endless Fury's extra firepower, otherwise it's a bit overkill. As is, a Krast Warden with a Thunderstrike Gauntlet is more than enough melee wise to take care of most heavy non-Titanic threats and given Endless Fury it's even better at anti-infantry.

Is it worth shelling out for meltaguns on Warglaives and Gallants?

 GreatGranpapy wrote:
Is it worth shelling out for meltaguns on Warglaives and Gallants?

Gallants, sure. They are a good place to put Landstrider, which means they are going to be advancing a fair amount. Full Tilt is a must on them. Might as well bust something else when they get there.

 GreatGranpapy wrote:
Is it worth shelling out for meltaguns on Warglaives and Gallants?

It's honestly just a leftover points thing. They're not bad, but they're also not a priority to take.

Melta on Warglaives is... Okay. Melta matches their primary gun in function. But they also tend to get and stay in combat so... Idk if worth. You will sometimes have that real good game where they make up their points in that one round.

tneva82 wrote:
Which doesn't help. Where-ever it is question is does he want to take out warglaive or gallant. Only way you can really alter that is by having one so far it's not a threat so opponent will shoot at other but that's not a good idea...warglaive too far to threaten might just as well be dead

You are overthinking it. Or have never played with appropriate terrain. Either or both.

Armigers move 14”, which means they can stay close to 12” move Knight no matter where it goes. And who targets a unit they can barely see behind a much bigger unit right there in front? Unless you play on Planet Bowling ball and think “behind” means “in front of”.

SJ

I tried oathbreaker missile strategem and I have to say, I don't think its worth it. My opponent had a IG warlord with grand strategist and Kurov's artifact. He would have had tons of additional CP so I tried to snipe that warlord away.

I spent the 2CP, and then I missed with my missile... Not only did I feel the loss of that 2CP very keenly, I realised that even if I had hit, I still could have failed to wound on a 1, and even if I wounded, I had to roll 4 or higher on my d6 wound to kill him.

There were just too many things that had to align in order for that 2cp to be worth it. If I had CPs coming out of my ears, maybe that would be worth it. Even then, I don't know. I could have easily aimed that missile at a non-character target and it still would have been fine.

Maybe if that character was so so central to the strategy of my opponent's list, then it might be worth it, and even then, there is a fair chance you will fail. Factoring failure to hit and failure to wound, and then needing a 4+ damage roll to kill a 4 wound character, the chances of your strategy's success is worse than 50%. Would you spend 2cp on a worse than 50% chance? >_<

Eldenfirefly wrote:
I tried oathbreaker missile strategem and I have to say, I don't think its worth it. My opponent had a IG warlord with grand strategist and Kurov's artifact. He would have had tons of additional CP so I tried to snipe that warlord away.

I spent the 2CP, and then I missed with my missile... Not only did I feel the loss of that 2CP very keenly, I realised that even if I had hit, I still could have failed to wound on a 1, and even if I wounded, I had to roll 4 or higher on my d6 wound to kill him.

There were just too many things that had to align in order for that 2cp to be worth it. If I had CPs coming out of my ears, maybe that would be worth it. Even then, I don't know. I could have easily aimed that missile at a non-character target and it still would have been fine.

Maybe if that character was so so central to the strategy of my opponent's list, then it might be worth it, and even then, there is a fair chance you will fail. Factoring failure to hit and failure to wound, and then needing a 4+ damage roll to kill a 4 wound character, the chances of your strategy's success is worse than 50%. Would you spend 2cp on a worse than 50% chance? >_<

Depending on how important it is to kill whatever it is you are shooting at with that missile, you could always throw another CP for a reroll in there.

Not saying you should, but just that you could. It's an option.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Which doesn't help. Where-ever it is question is does he want to take out warglaive or gallant. Only way you can really alter that is by having one so far it's not a threat so opponent will shoot at other but that's not a good idea...warglaive too far to threaten might just as well be dead

You are overthinking it. Or have never played with appropriate terrain. Either or both.

Armigers move 14”, which means they can stay close to 12” move Knight no matter where it goes. And who targets a unit they can barely see behind a much bigger unit right there in front? Unless you play on Planet Bowling ball and think “behind” means “in front of”.

SJ

With the way 8th ed LOS rules work not often you can get LOS blocked. And for that being close to the bigger knight is irrelevant.

As to "who targets...". The ones who would target even if they were on the other side of the table if the armiger is bigger priority. Only way gallant will provide protection is is by being bigger priority by being higher ratio of "threat and viable target to stop". Ie not only gallant is a threat but enemy can realistically try to deal with. If he has average firepower to take out warglaive but not gallant and warglaive is about to hit him then he will shoot it. AND THEN BEING BEHIND IS IRRELEVANT! Gallant can provide no protection LOS wise to the warglaive. It has huge open area between legs. Remember even tiny sliver of open line from any part of enemy to any part of warglaive and LOS is there and you can shoot 100% efficiently. This means btw if enemy shoots straight from front of rhino it can see THROUGH rhino by the hole below it caused by tracks raising hull a bit from ground...Incidentally this means you need to turn rhino sideway relative to enemy if you want to use it to block LOS. Alas gallant isn't bulky enough to block 100% of armiger regardless of how you turn it. So whether you are behind or front of gallant is actually 100% irrelevant. It does not matter in terms of LOS.

If warglaive is behind LOS blocking terrain then yes gallant will shot at but then position relative to gallant is irrelevant. You were protected by terrain. Not by gallant. Or you were protected by being too far to charge enemy while gallant has range but that's bad situation for you.

Yeah, but IK can do alot with 3 cps. >_< That's 3 rounds of rotate ion shield. lol

tneva82 wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Which doesn't help. Where-ever it is question is does he want to take out warglaive or gallant. Only way you can really alter that is by having one so far it's not a threat so opponent will shoot at other but that's not a good idea...warglaive too far to threaten might just as well be dead

You are overthinking it. Or have never played with appropriate terrain. Either or both.

Armigers move 14”, which means they can stay close to 12” move Knight no matter where it goes. And who targets a unit they can barely see behind a much bigger unit right there in front? Unless you play on Planet Bowling ball and think “behind” means “in front of”.

SJ

With the way 8th ed LOS rules work not often you can get LOS blocked. And for that being close to the bigger knight is irrelevant.

As to "who targets...". The ones who would target even if they were on the other side of the table if the armiger is bigger priority. Only way gallant will provide protection is is by being bigger priority by being higher ratio of "threat and viable target to stop". Ie not only gallant is a threat but enemy can realistically try to deal with. If he has average firepower to take out warglaive but not gallant and warglaive is about to hit him then he will shoot it. AND THEN BEING BEHIND IS IRRELEVANT! Gallant can provide no protection LOS wise to the warglaive. It has huge open area between legs. Remember even tiny sliver of open line from any part of enemy to any part of warglaive and LOS is there and you can shoot 100% efficiently. This means btw if enemy shoots straight from front of rhino it can see THROUGH rhino by the hole below it caused by tracks raising hull a bit from ground...Incidentally this means you need to turn rhino sideway relative to enemy if you want to use it to block LOS. Alas gallant isn't bulky enough to block 100% of armiger regardless of how you turn it. So whether you are behind or front of gallant is actually 100% irrelevant. It does not matter in terms of LOS.

If warglaive is behind LOS blocking terrain then yes gallant will shot at but then position relative to gallant is irrelevant. You were protected by terrain. Not by gallant. Or you were protected by being too far to charge enemy while gallant has range but that's bad situation for you.

So it’s the lack of tall line of sight blocking terrain, again. No point arguing, then.

SJ

Eldenfirefly wrote:
Yeah, but IK can do alot with 3 cps. >_< That's 3 rounds of rotate ion shield. lol

Well good thing is it's not quaranteed 3CP as you could you know succeed first time

But yeah it's not auto usage. Raven can actually benefit bit more of that than most as the castellan will likely be using their strategem as well so you get to reroll 1's anyway. Gives very good hit chance, nearly quaranteed to wound and you only need command reroll 1/3 of times vs 4 wound character. Sure then it's 4-5 CP but then again that raven strategem you want to use often anyway to make castellan just sick shooter.

It's situational strategem. You need good target like that CP farm commander or ork weirdboy if they only have 1(orks are often hamstrung without da jump and even 2-3 wounds is huge blow to weirdboy) for it to be worth it IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
So it’s the lack of tall line of sight blocking terrain, again. No point arguing, then.

SJ

You realize right that the presence of gallant is then irrelevant? If armiger can hide behind terrain it does that equally well without gallant. Unless we are talking about REAL weird terrain that happens to be shaped EXACTLY so that it would be just not enough without gallant but that's like tailor made terrain for that usage...In 20+ years I have never seen such a terrain piece. Either terrain piece is too small it won't matter whether gallant is there or not or terrain piece is big enough armiger is able to hide behind whether gallant is there or not.

The gallant adds NOTHING to whether enemy can shoot. If there's LOS blocking terrain you can use it with armiger whether you are behind gallant or not. Actually being behind gallant can actually HURT armiger then as you will be further from terrain(as gallant is between terrain and you!) so there's larger angle from where enemy will be able to see from sideways. So actually gallant is actually pushing armiger "no you go open to be shot. I'm hiding here"

You seem to think if gallant is front of armiger that somehow blocks LOS but that's not how 8th ed LOS works. Remember. If ANY point of enemy can see ANY piece of armiger, regardless of how big either points are, he can shoot at armiger and there's no difference whether armiger is there or somewhere with no terrain whatsover anywhere.

Your army can be armiger or armiger and gallant and enemy will shoot or not shoot based on LOS same either way. One of these situations happen:

a) Terrain blocks LOS to both. Well duh then neither gets shot. Gallant added nothing to it though. Just makes required terrain piece to be even bigger to cover everything and makes it easier for enemy to go sideways to get LOS to the armiger that is further away from terrain due to gallant being in the middle
b) terrain blocks LOS to armiger but not to gallant. Well duh then gallant would get shot of course. But of course that means if there wasn't gallant nothign would get shot. Gallant did not make life of armiger easier.
c) terrain doesn't block LOS to either(very common btw if you don't custom make terrain. GW's premade terrain is often open enough might not as well exist). Then it comes to which enemy will prioritze. But again position to gallant here is irrelevant. You can be sideway/further away and gallant will still draw the shots just as well if it's bigger priority. Gallant won't be get shot if gallant is threat he wants and can stop. OF course if enemy remaining firepower is like 2 lascannons gallant won't be getting shot as even max result isn't enough to stop gallant while armiger would be blown. So armigers position is really relevant only if armiger is too far to be threat to enemy and that's not good. But armiger could be side of gallant for all it matters. What matters is both are in position to threaten enemy. But that protection gallant can provide even if they are 20" away from each other.

What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff

 DoomMouse wrote:
What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff

Plus even if you settle for 2 of both it means paying 4CP more which means IG battallion's 5CP is paid on relics/traits bar 1 so big help will be GS/KA. Before FAQ you would be short of CP's to really benefit from GS without TWO ally battallion(3+5+3=11-6=5). Now at least it will be 5+6+3-5=9 to start with so GS will generate extra 3 in average.

I take usually Cawl's wrath and endless fury and ion bulwark. Traits I can live with though sometimes landstrider. I can't get paragon fist or 2+ though with GS/KA. Well KA I can get with 1CP strategem.


Certainly one thing speaking against IG ally battallion.

In my oppinion if i have three questoris or more im going three for the knights.

If I am having 2 with a warglaive its not worth stretching to boost the warglaive so extra stratagems are worth it.

Plus with three knights im not starting with less than 19cp anyway so its mot essential

 DoomMouse wrote:
What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff

I think you can sacrifice the 3rd WL trait, however, the choice you have to make is on the relics.

As for Grand Strategist, it all depends on whether or not you feel like you need the extra 3-4? CP a game, or whether you’re setup to be ok with it.

On warglaives abd meltas: lack of move and ignore heavy penalties on armigers along with may warglaives used in a close-range to assault units; I always add them. My gun knights are already clearing Chaff and my Errant is leading the warglaives to Close-in glory. The bonded oathsman strat is great as a counter charge to have them help him and they can shoot at the vehicles behind leftover chaff before charging in to sweep at the chaff or put extra melta shot into a vehicle before charging in to strike it.

On the matter of the Paragon Guantlet: it was discussed several pages back: should never be added to a gallant. Gallant can attack and clear most any type of unit with all the melee tools it has. The paragon makes the Reaper completely wasted points. Warden or errant are best places for the Paragon guantlet as both need to be relatively close to begin with and might as well add 5 points for a guantlet over a reaper, then if giving out extra relics might as well take the paragon. Errant is the true winner of paragon choice unless you are house taranis; they are the only ones with a relic thermal cannon(and it is frickin awesome too), and you probably would rather a warden have endless fury(unless you are putting it on a crusader)

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
On warglaives abd meltas: lack of move and ignore heavy penalties on armigers along with may warglaives used in a close-range to assault units; I always add them. My gun knights are already clearing Chaff and my Errant is leading the warglaives to Close-in glory. The bonded oathsman strat is great as a counter charge to have them help him and they can shoot at the vehicles behind leftover chaff before charging in to sweep at the chaff or put extra melta shot into a vehicle before charging in to strike it.

I also intend to always use Warglaives. All of my lists have involved a 1x3 Unit, all with Meltas for the purpose of Sally Forth. Showing up t2 and popping 1-2 Vehicles with ranged fire and then charging more feels quite satisfying.

As i use raven the heavy on heavy stubbers is less of issue. Thougg lack of firepower :s issue. I just find needing to drop knight to get meltaguns and that's too pricey. Melta works better for knight allies

tneva82 wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
What do people think between getting a grand strategist / kurovs Aquila guard warlord against getting three warlord traits and relics for the knights? The knight relics and warlord traits are so great that having an extra couple is a huge buff

Plus even if you settle for 2 of both it means paying 4CP more which means IG battallion's 5CP is paid on relics/traits bar 1 so big help will be GS/KA. Before FAQ you would be short of CP's to really benefit from GS without TWO ally battallion(3+5+3=11-6=5). Now at least it will be 5+6+3-5=9 to start with so GS will generate extra 3 in average.

I take usually Cawl's wrath and endless fury and ion bulwark. Traits I can live with though sometimes landstrider. I can't get paragon fist or 2+ though with GS/KA. Well KA I can get with 1CP strategem.


Certainly one thing speaking against IG ally battallion.

Grand strategist can proc on itself, so it's 4 or 5 command points, and with the Aquila gives you ~50% of the CP your opponent spends too. It's not inconsequential at all and IK can certainly spend them.

Proc on itself? Grand strategist doesn't recover cp spent on traits or relics

No, but when you get a CP back, that CP has the potential to proc another free one. It gives you more than 33% back.

That doesn't sound accurate, and I've not encountered any other person ever suggest that.

Edit: Got it. You meant when you used the one you gained. I thought you were implying it just chained off of the single gain proc.

 raverrn wrote:
No, but when you get a CP back, that CP has the potential to proc another free one. It gives you more than 33% back.

Ah that is what you meant. Still 5cp is bit thin. Also it prevents 3 knight relics which can be issue. If i had like shv and 2 bat detachments i probably would skip GS and take just aquilla. 19-1-3-1 is 14 plus more for strategems opponent use.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
That doesn't sound accurate, and I've not encountered any other person ever suggest that.

It's absolutely how the trait works. GS doesn't give back a secondary set of different CP, or other pseudo method. When you spend a CP you might gain a new one, and there's nothing that says you can't gain another when it's spent, or another or another.

 raverrn wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
That doesn't sound accurate, and I've not encountered any other person ever suggest that.

It's absolutely how the trait works. GS doesn't give back a secondary set of different CP, or other pseudo method. When you spend a CP you might gain a new one, and there's nothing that says you can't gain another when it's spent, or another or another.

You quoted me but neglected the second half of my post where I explained I understood exactly what you had meant to say in greater detail.