Xavier319 Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Okay, this topic is two-fold. One is, how good is the Questoris Knight Magaera? Here's the link... http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Warhammer_40000/Questoris_Knight_Magaera.pdf The big difference I see is the Init of 2 and the 3 attacks., as opposed to 4 and 4 from a regular knight. The main gun is neat, and could be okay. the other weapons are neat, and the shield is amazing. BUt how does it stack up to the usual battle cannon knight? second question, if i wanted to run one of the forge world knights that the more up-right guys, instead of hte beetle-back ones, and the only model i have is the beetle back ones, can i do that legally? Their profile is different,,, but if i get weapons that look like the ones on the FW one, can i run that in a tournament legally? or do i have to get the sepcial FW model? I ask because jeff, my bf, got me a knight box for christmas, and i wanted to know my options. Any thoughts or help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The Magaera is pretty meh from what I've seen. Haven't seen much about it tho. I'm curious how people feel about the other part, too, because I'd love to be able to rock a Castigator or Lancer by just working up some extra arms for my existing Knights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The big difference I see is the Init of 2 and the 3 attacks., as opposed to 4 and 4 from a regular knight. The main gun is neat, and could be okay. the other weapons are neat, and the shield is amazing. BUt how does it stack up to the usual battle cannon knight? Just as a point of clarity, most Knights are only three attacks- it's only the "assault" chassis ones (Lancer, Castigator, etc) that have the extra attack as well as the 3d6" run move. The main comparison with the Paladin is, as you note, the ranged weapons. The main gun is almost unquestionably weaker- with only one shot and S7, it will hit a lot less hard than the double Battle Cannon; however, Rending does give some small utility to it at least. On the other hand, it gets the Plasma Fusil (three shots to 18") as a secondary and can pick up a Fleshbane flamer as well. The Magaera's other main advantage is in resilience; with -1Str from hits against its Ion Shield making it a lot harder to drag down with S6/7 shots and the 6+ IWND roll for a random chance at healing, it can be a lot harder to kill than the "basic" Knight- however, you're definitely paying for these bonuses, because it is not cheap. All in all, I'm not terribly impressed by the Maegaera; it seems kitted to be a shooting unit, but with its weak main cannon it's not actually all that good at the role overall. I would probably favor a Paladin or Crusader instead, although it's not so bad that you couldn't use it. second question, if i wanted to run one of the forge world knights that the more up-right guys, instead of hte beetle-back ones, and the only model i have is the beetle back ones, can i do that legally? Their profile is different,,, but if i get weapons that look like the ones on the FW one, can i run that in a tournament legally? or do i have to get the sepcial FW model? As long as your weapons are modeled so as to look correct, no one is going to really care what chassis you're using. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The big issue I can see with using one multiple ways like I'm planning is that torso-mounted Stubber. I might have to come up with some sort of antenna or sensor array or something that fits over that. Really, I wish I could actually get that Stubber on those ones. It'd make the Castigator and Lancer significantly better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Yeah, having that extra gun to target the thing you want to charge would be really nice. I'm actually looking now at the Knight Warden, with his gatling cannon, and the one with the battle cannon and the gatling cannon. i dont really LIKE losing the D melee weapon, its a Clown card against a lot of stuff. but the extra big gun seems really solid. As for carapace mounted weapons, i'm curious about them. They sem really over-priced for what they do. a 40 point three shot crack only launcher? ouch. I'm seriously considering one of these guys as an ally for my space marines.. thoughts? (though, i cannot for the life of me, figure out what that ten point upgrade, the "occular augmetics" does) http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/Horus_Heresy/Cerastus-Knight-Atrapos.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Exactly. The Castigator and Lancer have a serious problem with inflicting enough damage in the Shooting Phase that it makes their Charges difficult or impossible. The two versions with the Gatling cannon are generally the best of the non-FW Knights. The D Weapon is nice against some things, but a lot of the time, the Stomps are what's doing the real work in CC, so it's not as important as you might think. Occular Augmetics give Night Vision and let you re-roll 1s on the Vehicle Damage Table when shooting at targets within 12". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The Atrapos seems solid, if rather expensive. (That 7th HP is nice, though.) I would definitely go with the gattling/battle cannon version of the Warden, it's easily the most useful. Carapace weapons vary a lot of useability- I actually like the Icarus because it gives you a solution to units that can otherwise be difficult to handle and can fill a similar role to the Heavy Stubbers in that it lets you shoot something with a secondary gun and then charge it. I think that the barrage blast one just gets stuck in an awkward middle ground where it's too expensive for what it does, but it's not awful. The Ironstorm I know a lot of players are sold on because it's great for breaking transports and sniping solo models, but I'm not 100% convinced on it yet. The issue I see with them is that they increase the cost on already-expensive models without giving you any more survivability, which is already an issue for Knights- however, if you're just running a single Knight I think there's a stronger argument to be made for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The Icarus is also pretty nicely priced as far as ground-bound AA goes. If you compare it to a Hydra or Stalker or something on shots per Point, it comes out ahead of most of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 The Left Arm mounted Battle Cannon on the Crusader is maybe 1/4" above the Acheron's Knee Pad. They are both standing within 1/16" of the same elevation. Assembling the Cerastus Knights is a lot of fun. Sooo much articulation. I'm pretty sure they have fewer pieces than the plastic Knight kit, but it's far more effective use of the pieces. Here's a size comparison. They use the same base, and have roughly the same profile, until you get to it's height and the weapon mountings height. I would say that the loss of field of vision for the weapons makes up for the reduced profile. As they are Assault Knights, I would encourage you to chop up and repose the legs from the standard kit to give the model more momentum. Maybe add some more exhaust pipes to suggest a turbo-charged super reactor powering it. Really, that's what I'd ask of you as an opponent if you're wanting to use the Standard Knights for the Cerastus Knights. Model a reason why it gets to move faster than your other Knights. Make your Cerastus conversions stand out from the Regular Knights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier319 Posted November 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 hmmm so the double shooty knight sounds good. i'm thinking double battle cannon and gatling cannon. with heavy stubber. i'm not sure i need the icarus, but you're right, for 40 points, it's pretty damn good for aa, and would mean i do not need an aa tank. most factions either use jet bikes, skimmers, or fliers, so it'll usually find use. do you think the five point stubber-to-melta upgrade is worth it? i can see the krak launcher as well, 3 missile launchers are 45 points, and it's about the same cost. i'm putting this in my iron hands list, so what i really need is some big gunz, and back-up cc. against other super heavies, i guess i'll just shoot them a lot and avoid close combat with anything with a d wep like a wk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2015 Report Share Posted November 30, 2015 Main issue with that Magaera is that the siege claw upgrade doesn't do anything (since D weapons don't roll armor pen or damage on the vehicle/building damage charts). I actually informed FW, but they haven't touched it yet. It's otherwise rather unimpressive, save the actual model (which I like). I really like that Styrix, which is the other of that chasis, but FW didn't include any rules which allow it in normal 40k. I also asked FW about it, and they said that they use it in normal 40k, but they are not actually going to update the rules to reflect this. FW's customer service has been "adopted" by GW main customer service, and now is even more worthless than before (better for returns, worse for any legitimate questions on products or rules). As for that low initiative, it's really crippling. Like most of the Knights, it's invulnerable doesn't apply in melee, so that below average initiative is very annoying. In an all-knight army you might get use of it, but with none of the IK formations allowing FW knights, and ITC not allowing multiple LOWs outside of knights, I think that low intiative is very crippling. In all honesty, the defensive rules imply a long range knight, but the Magera is lacking at range (for the points). 1x 5" blast at 48" for 395pts is horrible. I'd seriously get a baneblade (or variant) before seriously considering this guy for any reason other than appearances. I do hope FW fixes this guy's rules so he is more feasible, as I do like the model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted December 1, 2015 Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 Str D weapons actually do roll on the vehicle damage table, just like any other weapon. The rerolling failed penetrations part won't have any effect unless you houserule it, but there's no reason the +1 on the table wouldn't function. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 Str D weapons actually do roll on the vehicle damage table, just like any other weapon. The rerolling failed penetrations part won't have any effect unless you houserule it, but there's no reason the +1 on the table wouldn't function. Sigh...make me excavate my rulebook....Page 163. Says we roll on the Destroyer weapon attack table instead of rolling armor penetration. Same page, the Destroyer Weapon Attack Table says regarding vehicles and builds, 1 is no damage, 2-5 is a penetrating hit that inflicts d3 HP and a 6 is a penetrating hit that causes d6+6 HP lost. Never mentions use of the building or vehicle damage tables. Although they call them penetrating hits, they very clearly state the effect of the penetrating hit, and don't suggest following up with a further step. Seems pretty clear cut, to me. D weapons don't use the vehicle damage table, they use their own table. Page 75 has the vehicle damage and does mention penetrating hits, but has a different effect. No mention regarding D weapons. Building damage is page 110. Very similar lack of mention to D weapons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 A vehicle that suffers a penetrating hit has to roll of the damage table. That's the definition of a penetrating hit. It says they roll on the Destroyer table rather than rolling for penetration, but rolling for penetration is not the only step of making an attack against a vehicle- if the vehicle suffers a glancing or penetrating hit as a result of the attack, you have to then resolve the effects of that hit on the vehicle. Also note the text in the Destroyer table, which says the vehicle "suffers a penetrating hit that causes it to lose d3 hull points rather than one." If it only lost d3 HP, there would be no need to mention the penetrating hit at all- they could just say that it lost d3 HP. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 5, 2015 Report Share Posted December 5, 2015 A vehicle that suffers a penetrating hit has to roll of the damage table. That's the definition of a penetrating hit. It says they roll on the Destroyer table rather than rolling for penetration, but rolling for penetration is not the only step of making an attack against a vehicle- if the vehicle suffers a glancing or penetrating hit as a result of the attack, you have to then resolve the effects of that hit on the vehicle. Also note the text in the Destroyer table, which says the vehicle "suffers a penetrating hit that causes it to lose d3 hull points rather than one." If it only lost d3 HP, there would be no need to mention the penetrating hit at all- they could just say that it lost d3 HP. The roll on the vehicle damage table and the "definition" for a penetrating hit is in the subheading of Armor Penetration. This weapon does not roll for armor penetration. It also, very clearly defines what happens as a result of this penetrating hit. If they wanted you to roll on the damage table, it would be so much easier to write: "suffers as loss of d3 hull points and rolls once on the vehicle/building damage table." There are some in-game effects which specifically interact with GW terms (like penetrating hits), though GW is well known for using terms as both terms and as unrelated phrases. Always difficult to discern if GW intends additional meaning in something. And it's entirely possible that they are referencing dated terms or using terms which may have value in future products. GW is not a company where they use exact wording for anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.