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 know. I bought, assembled and painted three large ones, including a Preceptor, and then two of each Armiger. And every game I feel I am just missing a lot of board control because of that. That and an complete lack ability to hide from enemy shooting. Armigers are so much better for their points than the big guys.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
That's one thing I'm hoping for with Knights; more emphasis and reason to play multiple big Knights rather than a swarm of little ones. I play Knights because I want to run the big guys, but right now the meta is to only bring one, maaaybe two big ones and a bunch of Armigers. Boooring.

Exactly this, I don't mind a couple of armigers but I want to use big stompy robots.

The scuttlebut for 10th is that they will be leaning far heavier into using the base game mechanics for durability and lethality instead of piles of special rules - this should mean more toughness, less AP and more wounds to create a much broader curve of durability/lethality.

Agusto wrote:
I know. I bought, assembled and painted three large ones, including a Preceptor, and then two of each Armiger. And every game I feel I am just missing a lot of board control because of that. That and an complete lack ability to hide from enemy shooting. Armigers are so much better for their points than the big guys.

Sounds like your area needs to work on some new terrain.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
That's one thing I'm hoping for with Knights; more emphasis and reason to play multiple big Knights rather than a swarm of little ones. I play Knights because I want to run the big guys, but right now the meta is to only bring one, maaaybe two big ones and a bunch of Armigers. Boooring.

Same. So much same. 3 would be the sweet spot with maybe four Armigers. That's the variety we need, because one big Knight is boring!

Agusto wrote:
I know. I bought, assembled and painted three large ones, including a Preceptor, and then two of each Armiger. And every game I feel I am just missing a lot of board control because of that. That and an complete lack ability to hide from enemy shooting. Armigers are so much better for their points than the big guys.

If you play online: Use WTC terrain or any other layout with at least one big 9" tall L.

In real life: Agree with your local playgroup/casual opponents that at least one building in each deployment should count as "Tall to the sky" therefore hiding at least one Questoris knight so that either you're safe from turn 1 gunlines OR they need to expose themselves to see it from a weird angle, therefore getting in melta/charge range from the armigers as a tradeoff.

Personally I just embraded despair and currently run 10 Armigers plus a Mysterious Guardian Crusader as a freeblade lance and gak's been cash.3 tournaments in a row now where I match up with Tau who start the game all confident of an easy match up but then discover the hard truth.

So, Space Marines will get full rerolls of hit and wound against one unit per turn. I am really curious what Knights will get in the way of defensive buffs to be able to survive against that. Just a pip or two of T isn't going to cut the mustard, I am afraid.

And Tyranids can chose to have all 6:s to hit = auto wound. Good news.

Yeah i really wanna know what the knights datasheet looks like. I started knights a few weeks ago. That marine ability is really good.

It's not really a tactis question, but I guess I might find help really fast here without the need to open a new topic:
can anybody tell me the rough measurements of an Imperial Knight Model? I have a potential proxy model in mind and would like to check if it fits any of the common Knights.
The one I have has 20cm (~8'') height, 15cm (~6'') width, 10cm (~4'') depth.

The imperial knights faction focus is here
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/05/18/warhammer-40000-faction-focus-imperial-knights-2/

So all imperial knights have 6+ Fnp which goes up to 5+ if you complete the deed thats nice
I am kinda new to knights but this all pretty good.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
It's not really a tactis question, but I guess I might find help really fast here without the need to open a new topic:
can anybody tell me the rough measurements of an Imperial Knight Model? I have a potential proxy model in mind and would like to check if it fits any of the common Knights.
The one I have has 20cm (~8'') height, 15cm (~6'') width, 10cm (~4'') depth.

The basic knight is closer to 16cm tall, and is a little narrower then the oval base, at 15x11cm aprox.

The knights I have to measure have more of a walking/bracing pose. You might be able to make the stand more upright; I’ve not personally built one.

Sounds like yours is going to be a bit taller, by like an inch and a half, but the footprint should be OK.

So while this is the Chaos version, I think we can glean quite a bit from it.

The Battle Cannon appears to be the same - which means maybe the other weapons are analogs.

What do y'all think of that?

They way they are designed, they are a complete nightmare to repose. You'd have to be pretty skilled not only at cutting and reassembling parts, but also at sculpting new parts, as all the hoses and pistons and stuff are made for the knight to be posed in the striding forward position. The Forge World knights, at least the Cerastus class ones, are fully poseable.

With all the leaks and what we know so far, i think the Castellan is gonna make a great comeback in many list not just knights. Vehicles are so much tougher now. And apart from the Las-impulsor most ranged knights weapons wound t11+ on 5+ what do you think?

 nordsturmking wrote:
With all the leaks and what we know so far, i think the Castellan is gonna make a great comeback in many list not just knights. Vehicles are so much tougher now. And apart from the Las-impulsor most ranged knights weapons wound t11+ on 5+ what do you think?

Everything depends on point costs now. I would love if we went to a typical list that was one Big Boy, 2-3 regular boys and 2-4 Armigers, vs the current scheme we see with a slew of Armigers supported by one or two Knights.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:

 nordsturmking wrote:
With all the leaks and what we know so far, i think the Castellan is gonna make a great comeback in many list not just knights. Vehicles are so much tougher now. And apart from the Las-impulsor most ranged knights weapons wound t11+ on 5+ what do you think?

Everything depends on point costs now. I would love if we went to a typical list that was one Big Boy, 2-3 regular boys and 2-4 Armigers, vs the current scheme we see with a slew of Armigers supported by one or two Knights.

Yeah i agree i don't play knights to spam armigers. If 3 armigers 3 questoris and 1 dominus fit in a 2k points list i woudlbe very happy.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:


So while this is the Chaos version, I think we can glean quite a bit from it.

The Battle Cannon appears to be the same - which means maybe the other weapons are analogs.

What do y'all think of that?

Assuming that we get the same options, it seems like Fist and gatling might be our best take-all comers combo. Battlecannon's d3 is nice but with AP -1 I'm not sure what we'd be shooting at.
Custodes? wound on 3's and they save on 3's so your average output would be 1 custode (rounding up). Our results would be similar against tanks and monsters.
Terminators? A little better, 1.2 dead terms. Still meh.
Gravis (and MEQ) 1.8, we could do better.
and we could expect to pick up 3-4 hoard type models or guardsmen.

Meanwhile with the gatling:
Custodes: 1-2 dead
TEQ: 4 dead
MEQ: 5-6 dead
GEQ: 10(!)

Obviously the melta is ideal against the heaviest of targets and it's probably worth taking one or two in your army, though you could leave that to the armigers.

Edit: I missed that the battle cannon is rapid fire d6+3. Much better, still overshadowed I should think.

EDIT: small tweaks

Competitive List:

Knight Valiant
2x SBM, 1x SBC
Mysterious Guardian
[525]

Knight Warden
Stormspear, Meltagun
Mythic Hero
[445]

Knight Errant
Stormspear, Meltagun
[375]

Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

Vindicare Assassin
[80]

[1985]

The best part of this army is how easy it is to magnetize, making it so, so easy to change on the fly. Which will be good because I expect GW to kneejerk out points up before too long.

Well that's the point of having the indexes all digital, make the players do all the testing GW didn't do. I'm intrigued about why the Gallant went form the cheapest Knight to 3rd more expensive. Is the CC ability that strong?

M.

Oooh. Lancer looks spicy!

Reclaim the Realm

Cerastus Knight Lancer
[430]

Knight Valiant
2x SBM, 1x SBC
Mysterious Guardian
[525]

Knight Warden
Stormspear, Meltagun
Unyielding Paragon
[420]

Armiger Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

Armiger Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

Armiger Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

Armiger Warglaive
Meltagun
[140]

[1975]

So, not going the Vindicare-kills-Warlord premise with this. Focusing on rushing the whole army at the opponent. Lancer can double up Lancer's Duty, so a pair of Warglaives can advance and charge if needed. Valiant does the same trick - Deep Strike into a vulnerable spot and unleash some hurt. Warden gets the durability buffs.

Thoughts on this? Vs the other Lay Low list?

Also, generally, wasn't too impressed with the FW offerings. Lancer is the clear winner to me. Magaera and Moirox were major disappointments.

Just for the laughs.

Dominus Knight Castellan.

Questoris Knight Errant x4.

Deploy on the table, watch the despairing face of your adversary that didn't bring enough AT weapons.

M.

Edit: I know it can countered many ways to Sunday, but it would look so cool on the table.

Rule of 3 is the first thing that counters it

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Rule of 3 is the first thing that counters it

Forgot that, but easy fix. Change an Errant to a Percentor.

M.

Knights are going to be one of the feel bad/gatekeeper armies in early 10e.

Its one of the few armies people should list tailor for casual games.

Its good that GW actually made armor tough but I think they took it a little too far. Sure stuff like plasma shouldnt be hurting armor but melta too?

With the Cerastus Knight Lancer coming in plastic i thought i should have a look at it. And it seems that the Cerastus Knight Lancer is just a much better Gallant. And the Castigator ist just a better warden.

Gallant vs Lancer

Lancer(430p):
4+ inv. save
+3 wounds
+2 movement
Bondsman: advance and charge
free tank shocks
lance ability with strike profile so wounding everything on 2+

Gallant(400p):
30points cheaper
-1 to hit in melee
Bondsman: reroll charges and hits
+1 attack on strike
+2 attacks on sweep
option for taking a chainsword


both have a little bit of shooting which is mostly irrelevant i think.

I think the Lancer is so much better mainly because of its 4++ For me it is not even a question which one i take.
What do you think?

 nordsturmking wrote:
With the Cerastus Knight Lancer coming in plastic i thought i should have a look at it. And it seems that the Cerastus Knight Lancer is just a much better Gallant. And the Castigator ist just a better warden.

Gallant vs Lancer

Lancer(430p):
4+ inv. save
+3 wounds
+2 movement
Bondsman: advance and charge
free tank shocks
lance ability with strike profile so wounding everything on 2+

Gallant(400p):
30points cheaper
-1 to hit in melee
Bondsman: reroll charges and hits
+1 attack on strike
+2 attacks on sweep
option for taking a chainsword


both have a little bit of shooting which is mostly irrelevant i think.

I think the Lancer is so much better mainly because of its 4++ For me it is not even a question which one i take.
What do you think?

Lancer has better shooting for sure. Also, the Tank Shock is great and being able to Advance and Charge with that boosted movement gives it an absolutely incredible reach. I think it wins hands down.

Anybody want to start a new thread for Knights in 10th?

 ZergSmasher wrote:
Anybody want to start a new thread for Knights in 10th?

Good idea i just did it.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/810561.page