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.

I've seen several 9th edition battle reports for pure Knights on Youtube now, and it's really reinforced my view that you need Armigers for board control. The Knights haven't been doing badly by any stretch, and obscuring terrain hasn't left them wanting for targets. I think that Helverins are especially important for holding backfield objectives. Armigers also become the weak link for scoring Attrition, so Helverins are easier to keep out of danger.

The fact of the matter is that 3 or 4 Knight is too few to score primaries reliably, especially as you take casualties. I wouldn't take less than 6 models, however you want to divvy that up. You need to be able to leave models on objectives without feeling like you're missing firepower, or that you have to give up scoring objectives to fight the enemy.

I've also noticed that Flanking Maneuver is way more powerful now that lots of scoring comes from board control. I'd use it on Armigers, especially Warglaives (which can still shoot), to spring on to table quarters for Engage on All Fronts or mission specific secondaries. You probably still lose too much shooting to use it on a Knight unless you're House Raven, but it's something to consider.

Likewise, I think reserving full Knights is both too expensive and wastes too much firepower, but reserving Armigers protects them while you're scoring Attrition, and lets them arrive in table quarters from turn 2 onward.

Hey all,

So to cut a long story short, Looking for advice on a small list.


My thoughts are:

2-3x Custodes captains on Jetbikes, which i think from looking at the pts brings it around >200 Pts per Captain.
Then I wanted to bring some IK's in some format, I think I just about understand the detachments so I was thinking either;
Single Knight (for the no CP) Aux detachment - Shooty variant of Crusader or Castellan
Or
Take the 3x LoW - Crusader/Castellan and 2x helverins (for the 3CP)

Then backfill with Custodes or other allies as needed to reach whatever points im playing (most likely 1k -1.5k).
My questions:

The Castellan seems not that far off in terms of points considering its little brother pays for its main guns and it doesnt, is it worth sinking the extra points and taking the Castellan? I am assuming that with my 2 custodes on bikes any melee focused units are gona be going straight for it?

If I opt for the 3xLoW detachment, Helverins for support or warglaives? I like the idea of helverins, as ive never had an army thats good at shooting (orksorksorksorks!), so i like the idea of raining down fire upon those who dare my wrath! but are they in the same issue with being the target of the melee/DS/flankers?

I assume its best to keep the custodes bike captain as the warlord? I think making the 1 knight on the board my warlord is probably a pretty big "HI AIM ALL YOUR STUFF THIS WAY!" right?

Any advice appreciated so I can workout how much dakkadakka is appropriate. Dont need anything super detailed, but really is the castellan good by its own? or will it have to be baby sat?

I suspect part of the reason might also be we are 3 weeks away from changing from 8th edition to 9th edition.
The core rukes have changed and GW have put ghe Battle primer style update on the website for free.

The full rulebook and a new CA2020 with updated points values for wcery unit in the game are due to release about the same time.

Right now without the point cost changes no-one is really able to give you certainty in any advice they give you.

Eight now it's all a case of we need to know how many points will certain models and weapons be, to be able to even begin to say what will or won't be good in 9th

Unfortunately it's looking like 9th may favour armigers over questorus class knights but without points this js guesswork/theory based on the leaks abd information we have so far.

Ice_can wrote:
I suspect part of the reason might also be we are 3 weeks away from changing from 8th edition to 9th edition.
The core rukes have changed and GW have put ghe Battle primer style update on the website for free.

The full rulebook and a new CA2020 with updated points values for wcery unit in the game are due to release about the same time.

Right now without the point cost changes no-one is really able to give you certainty in any advice they give you.

Eight now it's all a case of we need to know how many points will certain models and weapons be, to be able to even begin to say what will or won't be good in 9th

Unfortunately it's looking like 9th may favour armigers over questorus class knights but without points this js guesswork/theory based on the leaks abd information we have so far.

Thanks for the update! Yeh it was one of those days where i woke up in a WH mood and popped on my bike to get me some plastic! So i had no idea 9E was closing in! I promised myself id play in 8E.... bought the rule book and all..... and never got there! I think then for now i'll go with the Crusader and 3x helverins. I can make some cool conversions for the helverins and they have set weapons and like you said, i think its likely they will want to keep them viable, they didnt move away from the big guys just for gaks and giggles (thought you never know with GW). Then the crusader can always just have more dakka strapped to it when i want! to the chopshop! the Mek owes me a favour or two

Cheers for the headsup!

Ice_can wrote:
I suspect part of the reason might also be we are 3 weeks away from changing from 8th edition to 9th edition.
The core rukes have changed and GW have put ghe Battle primer style update on the website for free.

The full rulebook and a new CA2020 with updated points values for wcery unit in the game are due to release about the same time.

Right now without the point cost changes no-one is really able to give you certainty in any advice they give you.

Eight now it's all a case of we need to know how many points will certain models and weapons be, to be able to even begin to say what will or won't be good in 9th

Unfortunately it's looking like 9th may favour armigers over questorus class knights but without points this js guesswork/theory based on the leaks abd information we have so far.

And i would disagree with that assessment questoris / Castigator with soup allies would be my guess based on the released information so far. Knights want to be in the enemys face ASAP - your ally of choice will do the objective holding better because they have the infantry keyword

You realise that if you dont go first that allies Knights is just gone before the end of turn 1.

Plenty of Lists still have ample firepower to alpha 1 knight off the table. And questorus and up can never get cover even behind a solid wall if it has the obscuring keyword.

Arimgers can use obscuring terrain and are a lot cheaper to reserve.

Also The castigator is about to see its rules and points likely upended as the Main studio FW books are apparently finally due to be released in August.

Admech are my ally of choice so if i dont get t1 my main knight gets cover from cantical. So cover plus armour of the sacred ion + taranis makes you pretty resiliant and we should be facing 15% less firepower than 8th and if you dont kill them they act as undamaged.

Yes the destroyed questoris T1 going second it tough but ive seen many armies fail to do so in 8th and if you play knights you have to accept it will happen some games. Theres no reason to think it will happen anymore frequently than it does now.l and a lot to think it will happen less.

As to allies they dont vanish T1 if you use terrain correctly they didnt in 8th they wont in ninth.

We could never hide our questoris before or get 50% obscured on most tourney tables.

Armiger suffer from being weaker with lower T point for point and without the relic warlord trait upgrades of their larger brethren.

Warglaives are still mediochre in combat put are passable as a half knight.

Helverins still suffer from the guns being ok vs some armies but useless vs others (and do nothing in CC) not terrible to have on an objective but theirs a reason you hardly see them.

As to Moiraxs they are a valid consideration twin laslocks, twin graviton or one and a claw however mostly claw are going straight at the enemy.

Sure you can technically oscure the shootimg armigers but they are tall enough that on lots of boards it wont happen and with the smaller board many armys will shoot the length even if you can obscure a couple they will just slaughter the third or 4h

By the castigator logic any model could be faq'd and be upended - they could also improve - based on current known rules the castigator is solid (as a one) but its immunity to the extra relic warlord trait strat makes it a 1. It is in quite a balanced place.

U02dah4 wrote:
Admech are my ally of choice so if i dont get t1 my main knight gets cover from cantical. So cover plus armour of the sacred ion + taranis makes you pretty resiliant and we should be facing 15% less firepower than 8th and if you dont kill them they act as undamaged.

Yes the destroyed questoris T1 going second it tough but ive seen many armies fail to do so in 8th and if you play knights you have to accept it will happen some games. Theres no reason to think it will happen anymore frequently than it does now.l and a lot to think it will happen less.

As to allies they dont vanish T1 if you use terrain correctly they didnt in 8th they wont in ninth.

We could never hide our questoris before or get 50% obscured on most tourney tables.

Armiger suffer from being weaker with lower T point for point and without the relic warlord trait upgrades of their larger brethren.

Warglaives are still mediochre in combat put are passable as a half knight.

Helverins still suffer from the guns being ok vs some armies but useless vs others (and do nothing in CC) not terrible to have on an objective but theirs a reason you hardly see them.

As to Moiraxs they are a valid consideration twin laslocks, twin graviton or one and a claw however mostly claw are going straight at the enemy.

Sure you can technically oscure the shootimg armigers but they are tall enough that on lots of boards it wont happen and with the smaller board many armys will shoot the length even if you can obscure a couple they will just slaughter the third or 4h

By the castigator logic any model could be faq'd and be upended - they could also improve - based on current known rules the castigator is solid (as a one) but its immunity to the extra relic warlord trait strat makes it a 1. It is in quite a balanced place.

Of note: "gains the Benefits from cover"-type rules give you Light cover only per the "Rare rules section of the new BRB, so you do get effective 2+ save from your knight in shooting.

Armour of the sacred ion gives you 2+ cover makes that 1+

So far the issue I've seen/heard from the games supposedly using the new 9th edition points is 2k of spacemarines looks very much little different (100-150 points) from an 8th edition list so far and I have lost 2 knights from full health against them plent of times. And those new melta primaris certainly look like they will be more than able to improve the marines odds of doing that reliably.

I really just wish GW would stop selling codex's saying yeah run this as a mono army then balancing around soup.

They should just acknowledge that certain codexs are balanced for soup and intended as such.

Ultra skewlists are bad either insta win or loss think 7th we dont want functional mono knights.

Marines will be nered once the data comes in. They are an outlier compared to other factions

U02dah4 wrote:
They should just acknowledge that certain codexs are balanced for soup and intended as such.

Ultra skewlists are bad either insta win or loss think 7th we dont want functional mono knights.

Marines will be nered once the data comes in. They are an outlier compared to other factions

Except skew isnt a thing since they brought in the flat wounding chart. You never get the 7th edition uninteractive list.
The whole point of said wounding chart was to enable thibgs like mono knight's etc without them being unbalanced.

Except GW still bows to mass histeria and still hasnt balanced marines almost a year after their codex.

Skew is still a thing.

60 guardsmen are easy to kill 200 are not because you probably have enough mass firepower to kill kill 60 but lascannoning a guardsmen is points inefficient

Same is true in reverse most TAC lists only have so many anti tank units - sure guardsmen can get lucky and wound a knight. But it takes 75-80 lasgun shots on avg assuming cover or armour of the sacred ion and not taranis. Thats really inefficient. 80 guardsmen at rf range doing 12 wounds in a game assuming no casualties and staying in rf everyturn. (Which wont happen as the knight will stomp stubber/flamer) if the guardsmen are in rf)

Sure vehicle damage tables help in theory but in reality 90% of knight list are mechanicus and 1CP we will ignore that feature.

You rarely see the 7th uninteractive skew lists because mono knights is not viable competatively due to missions and 200+ guardsmen are not viable with a clock (excepting aeldari flyers thar dissapear in ninth). But they are not fun

Your still taking a relic or a soup component and spending CP to gain cover which also realy is little different than Guard shooting Custodes jetbikes for the most part.
You could also drastically improve their efficiency if people would take heavy weapons in squads. They might have been less mobile but they were harder to kill.

It seems the issue is the modern obsession with maximum efficiency comming from specialisation and GW failing to take acount of that in points.

Also going back through all the editions I have played numerous times armies have been able to build skew lists and they often were not that dominant.

Seruously at this point it feels more like a dang marketing issue in they can make you buy more models and more codex's to actually make the game winable instead of being able to play the army they actually sold a codex for.

But to get this back on track so far Choas knights seem to have the easier time from the battlereports I have seeen but the Imperial Knights were up against spacemarines so that may be contributing to them getting steamrolled aswell.

However complaining about GW's inability to balance and not flip flop aside, I'm still going to try and make them work as best as I can.

A Moriax with twin Grav and the Mechnicus warlord trait allowing roll 2 pick for number of shots looks like it could be tasty.
Also I havent mathed it out yet I'll admit but I'm thinking a preceptor of all things could have some interesting play going all in on defences and trying to hold the mid board with Helverin for back board objectives, 3 grav/lightning lock moriax for the mid board and either 2 warglaive or more moriax for foward pressure. Depending in points I might consider a bare gallant for the old yolo charge deal with me or die style play, however if the new FW rules actually un screw my styrix, Lancer or Atropose I could see one of those in reserve being an interesting problem for many opponents to deal with. And thats all for 17-1800 points

Mechanics obviously and custom house though exactly which option will need pkaytesting.

The preceptor seems a straight up upgrade to an errant post engine war if points remain similar in ratio to now.

Castigator, preceptor 1-2 grav/claw moiraxs + allies

Either taranis or imperium - defiant fury+stormstriders

Taranis has the edge on survivability if going second

but the other build ignores damage table for movement and only gets a single debuff to WS at a 1/4W becomming better at CC at half negateing a lot of the need for mechanicus and saving CP + with the extra point of move and charge the cerastus and moiraxs only need an 8" charge to make your opponents deployment zone (assuming 24" apart)

+ defiant fury makes valiant last stand pretty nasty in melee

I suspect it will depend upon what wepaons picj up the blast keyword as so far the thermal spear has it so no shooting that in CC the autocannons on the armiger dont, the battle cannon and Thermal do, as does the ironstorm pod.

I suspect Gravpulsar might become blast

I don't feel like the +1 advance and charge is better than the +1 wound to make me want to go imperial questor.

I feel like a CC boost and either stormstriders or blessed arm's is going to be a goto combo for me.

If your taking shooting knights it isnt but with all my knights being CC a 50% increase in the chance of CCing T1 15/36 is a big boost.

As to blast and knights their current rule might be faqed to allow them to fire as they do now

U02dah4 wrote:
If your taking shooting knights it isnt but with all my knights being CC a 50% increase in the chance of CCing T1 15/36 is a big boost.

As to blast and knights their current rule might be faqed to allow them to fire as they do now

Yeah the day 1 FAQ and points will be key.
That they took away flank speed from carestus knights and didnt change the points made me sad they went from reliable Turn 1 charge with full tilt to turn 2 more often than not, which for a 400 plus point CC model isn't going to be good enough.

I’m wondering if the value of a Valiant might increase with the smaller boards

Value of a Castellan will be dependant on how bad obscuring terrain is, just how many points he will be. Could you imagine if he went to 900 lol.

His range will be less needed now

I genuinely don't think GW will be able to make a non raven cawls wrath castellen playable without changing something about the interactions between them.
I suspect aswell that the castellen has probably sold about as much as it will and will be allowed to live on the fluff players side of underpowered for quite a while, so yeah I could see a castellen being that many points in 9th.

The Valient they are trying but again the difference between its relic version and standard is high and the imperial side of the codex just had a hard tine competing with the Mechnicus side, maybe with the build your own house you could make it work, but I'm not sure how competitive it would be.

The harpoon needs a change. Ignore invulnerable would be best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bloody stupid how it just pings off or misses most targets

 Ideasweasel wrote:
The harpoon needs a change. Ignore invulnerable would be best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bloody stupid how it just pings off or misses most targets

No that's like saying things should just take 11-13MW that would be even more unbalanceable

Good job I’m not in charge of balance

D3 shots maybe. It’s so unreliable. He spends turn 1 trying to get into range then he’s usually blasted dead.

Assuming he lives he always seems to whiff. He’s cursed for me I think

I'm just hoping Castigators will be good in 9th, as I just traded a significant amount of Death Guard stuff (since I'm getting out of Chaos) for 2 of them plus a couple of Armigers. My initial feeling is that they'll be decent unless they get a massive points hike (above what everything else is getting since I realize everything's going to be more expensive in 9th).

Well 1 is good now - 2 struggles because you cant give the second relics or warlord traits

Anyone else find it rediculous that GW tried to use the forgeshrine as an example of a good fortification it's like they actually belive it's playable.

Yeah that was funny. Knights might have the worst terrain piece and it even was hit by nerfbat in 9th...

Ork one used to be nearly as bad but at least it had weak mw generator and now gives kustom jobs so save cp for cost of points. Knights don't have even that.

Castigators look intriguing. I think they might be better as Chaos Knights with multiple abilities to increase the damage on a weapon though. I'd really like to be wrong.

It feels like Imperial Knights have slightly better households and strategems, and Chaos Knights in 8th had better points values. I really want to play knights, but they need a few things out of 9th to be... not competitive but not auto-lose options.

Ice_can wrote:
Anyone else find it rediculous that GW tried to use the forgeshrine as an example of a good fortification it's like they actually belive it's playable.

Hey now, it is playable; just fething useless for non-Imperialis.

Friendly reminder that Techpriests can only repair Questor Mechanicus knights, and that is just about the stupidest thing ever.

-However-

A Techpriest/techmarine on a Sacristan can give the full 3 repair while on a Sacristan(if you forgo your knight doing anything).

The seeming lack of change to the forge-shrine does make it even more useless with reloading and movement: Movement is self-explanatory, it is always better to just move and shoot toward your enemy/objective that load-in to the shrine and then get a small boost of movement sacrificing shooting that turn. Reloading without/with full shieldbreakers does very little against the units that you really want full attacks with(you know, the ones that already get full attacks vs our blast weapons); only the conflagration cannon and Helverins really gain any benefit from it.

Sorry to just jump in with a tangent, but I've been looking at them and has anybody tried out a Knight Asterius? How'd it'd do in your match-ups?