Horus Heresy Cerastus Knight Lancer (in plastic!)

[spessmarine]

13 hours ago, Karhedron said:

Last year I bought the Spartan as a HH/40K vehicle. I have just seen it sent to Legends. I won't be splashing out on a Cerastus until I see the full Knight Codex with it in so I can be confident that I will get at least one edition's use out of it. 

 

I think this is a legitimate concern and relevant.

Went from, "wow check out this new tank (Kratos) here is a 40k datasheet we got out ASAP" to "sorry, too complex unlike hover tanks for 40k"

It would be natural to look at the Cerastus in 40k article coming out before the 30k one and having some distrust. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me and all

[Helycon]

My local hobby store still has them available to order, which is most intriguing. I get it's an expensive model, but I expected it to sell out in a day. I ordered mine straight away, as I buffered up since we knew it was coming  . I'm very happy I don't need to buy the resin one. I'm not opposed to resin, but plastic is just that much easier! Hopefully they'll do a similar trick later on with the other knights, but perhaps the torso is too different with the ammo feeds. Still, also buffering up for those, especially the Castigator! 

 

This will be a stand-out piece for any Imperial Knight army, as tall and imposing as it is and the pose-ability looks great too. I think there were some tips to building it if you want the full range of motion in one of the WarCom articles, for those that may have missed it, although I doubt people hyped for the model did 

[Sea Creature]

Hope they do a plastic Atropos.

[Helycon]

8 minutes ago, Sea Creature said:

Hope they do a plastic Atropos.

The Atrapos only has the frame in common as all the armor plates are different. And for Heresy, it has the smallest base as Mechanicum only if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure they'll come around to it eventually, but I'm doubtful it's high on the list. 

[SalamandersBro]

I would be able to ally one into my Salamanders or World Eaters army? As long as I meet the points requirements for a Lord of War? 

[Sword Brother Adelard]

8 hours ago, Helycon said:

The Atrapos only has the frame in common as all the armor plates are different. And for Heresy, it has the smallest base as Mechanicum only if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure they'll come around to it eventually, but I'm doubtful it's high on the list. 

My bet is they retool the plates to be a resin upgrade to the new kit. They would still be an improvement

[Noserenda]

9 hours ago, SalamandersBro said:

I would be able to ally one into my Salamanders or World Eaters army? As long as I meet the points requirements for a Lord of War? 

Yup, you can always take a knight in your LoW slot subject to points.

[Squark]

11 hours ago, SalamandersBro said:

I would be able to ally one into my Salamanders or World Eaters army? As long as I meet the points requirements for a Lord of War? 

In 40k, you can take one Knight (including a Cerastust class) or 1-3 armigers/war dogs to supplement an Imperium/Chaos army.

 

In the Heresy, you can take one knight as a lord of war (At 2000 points and above), or you can take an allied knights detachment with 2 Armigers and a Knight, which would unlock household ranks for your knight (This technically bypasses the normal lord of war requirements, but a ~400 point knight and 2 200 point Armigers means they'll be more of a primary detachment until you reach 2k points)

[Petitioner's City]

On 8/7/2023 at 10:21 PM, Helycon said:

The Atrapos [...] has the smallest base as Mechanicum only if I'm not mistaken.

 

Not at all, good friend. You have both the Mechanicum and the Questoris version of the Atrapos (and the same for the magaera, styrix and two asteriii). The only knights that is exclusively mechanicum at the moment (if not using house rules) are the moirax armigers. 

 

There are also those cheeky folks on the internet who misread the force organisation rules to say that because your lord of war can be a different faction from your primary detachment, you then can always take a lord of war from any list, irrespective your main faction (seen eg on Goonhammer and often on Discord) - nevermind asking oneself why then the Questoris and Titan lists, or Khabanda, tell us we can take a knight or titan either in their own detachment, or as a single Lord of War, using language which does not suggest it is normal to take a lord of war different from your main faction (just that it can happen at specific instances).

 

But if you agree with the cheeky interpretation then nevermind that a specific lord of war is just mechanicum, anyone could then take it.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Petitioner's City

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

There are also those cheeky folks on the internet who misread the force organisation rules to say that because your lord of war can be a different faction from your primary detachment, you then can always take a lord of war from any list, irrespective your main faction (seen eg on Goonhammer and often on Discord) - nevermind asking oneself why then the Questoris and Titan lists, or Khabanda, tell us we can take a knight or titan either in their own detachment, or as a single Lord of War, using language which does not suggest it is normal to take a lord of war different from your main faction (just that it can happen at specific instances).

 

It's not a misreading of the rules for the FOC that brings the interpretation that a LOW can be a different faction, but a thorough one. 

 

This is what they say:

• Primary detachment is compulsory 
• The primary's compulsory slots must be filled, and the warlord has to come from the primary.
• Optional are optional, but if taken, the compulsory slots must be filled.
• All models in a single detachment must belong to the same faction.
• All models in the same army must belong to the same allegiance.
• Allied detachments must always be a different faction than the primary.

 

There's nothing about lords of war being the same faction as the primary, so as long as all the models in that detachment are the same faction (and conform the allegiance), you can have that faction be whatever you want.

 

You look at the titan rules for including them in armies, and see that both options follow the FOC rules, without needing any special exemptions. Same with the knights, except there's a little something else explaining how their FOC is modified when taken as a primary or ally.

 

Khabandas rules tell you he can always be selected as warlord. This is to override the normal stipulations that a warlord has to be from primary, be an HQ before anything else, and that non-hq warlords don't get warlord traits. There's actually no language to suggest taking him as a different-faction LoW is an aberration.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 9, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Petitioner's City]

While I get the argument, I think it's cheeky as it is abusable - and people tend to use it that way. I honestly don't think SG meant you could do this except in circumstances where the ability to take that lord of war is explicit. It is - why do SG make this clear if it doesn't need to be said:

 

Quote

The first way to include units from the Divisio Tactica:

The Titan Legions in an army is to select a single Lords of War unit from the unit entries on pages 69-72 to fill a Lords of War Optional Detachment in a Crusade Force Organisation chart.

The second way to include units from the Divisio Tactica: The Titan Legions in an army is to use the Titan Maniple Detachment. The Titan Maniple Detachment may be included as an Optional Detachment in any army that uses the Crusade Force Organisation chart (this does not replace any other Optional Detachments in that Force Organisation chart).

 

 

If it was always intended that you could pick any lord of war for any army, then surely the first paragraph would be phrased differently? "as normal"? 

 

This occurs with Questoris and with the big K, but not elsewhere.

 

Quote

The first way to include units from the Divisio Tactica: Questoris Household in an army is to select a single Lords of War unit from the unit entries on pages 78-87 to fill a Lords of War Optional Detachment in a Crusade Force Organisation chart.

 

The second way to include units from the Divisio Tactica: Questoris Households in an army is to use the Household Detachment.

 

And I think you are misremembering K's language which is

 

Quote

Ka’bandha may be selected as part of a Lords of War Detachment for any army with the Traitor Allegiance, subject to the restrictions on Lords of War and Primarch points totals. However, if selected as part of an Army List which does not include any models with both the Psyker Unit Sub-type and the Independent Character special rule, Ka’Bandha will be unable to be deployed on the battlefield or enter play from Reserves, as per the Bound Unit Sub-type.

 

Again if it was normal to be able to take K as a lord of war in another army, then everything before "However[...]" is unnecessary. You could always do that, in your argument?

 

These are the three instances where the taking of lord of wars from a different faction are made clear, and they suggest this is not normal by explaining how you do it. 

 

Quote

Most Force Organisation charts, including the Crusade chart illustrated opposite, comprise several Detachments.

Each Detachment within a Force Organisation chart is a discrete set of units, effectively a sub-Force Organisation chart, that allows players to customise their army further or to include additional forces when playing larger games. All Force Organisation charts in the Age of Darkness rules include a Primary Detachment – this Detachment is compulsory and must be taken as part of the army. The army’s Warlord (see page 284) must also be selected from the Primary Detachment of its Force Organisation chart and all compulsory slots must be filled before other optional Detachments may be taken. Any other Detachments listed as part of a Force Organisation chart are considered optional – a player may choose to incorporate them into their army or not, at their own discretion. However, if a player decides to include an optional Detachment then all compulsory slots from that optional Detachment must also be filled.Regardless of its type, either Primary or optional, all models in a single Detachment must be of the same Faction (see page 282) and all models in the army must be of the same Allegiance.

 

As an example, the Crusade Force Organisation chart consists of three separate Detachments: the Primary Detachment, a Lords of War Detachment and an optional Allied Detachment. A player using this Force Organisation chart to build an army would be required to fill all compulsory slots in the Primary Detachment, in this case, one HQ slot and two Troops slots, before selecting any other units, and all of the units selected would have to be of the same Faction. Once these compulsory slots are filled,the player is free to select additional optional units for the Primary Detachment as allowed by the agreed points total, or to select units from the optional Allied or Lords of War Detachments. If any units from the Allied Detachment are selected then any compulsory slots present in that optional Detachment would have to be filled as well.

 

Allied Detachments

 

Allied Detachments are the most common type of optional Detachment, representing small contingents of allied forces attached to the core of the player’s chosen force. Unlike other Detachments, an Allied Detachment must always be of a different Faction than the player’s Primary Detachment.
 

 

Like I fail to see how this allows a lord of war free for all, unless one is being a bit cheeky, looking at this text. It doesn't tell you how you can take a low from another faction - that is only made clear in the three instances above.

 

There is the "Allies in the Age of Darkness" text - which I think is where this argument derives - but I honestly think this is an easily cheeky reading of it:

 

Quote

Allies in the Age of Darkness

 

During the Age of Darkness, the forces of the Imperium and the Traitors alike were torn apart by war and suspicion. Any Force Organisation chart which includes more than just a Primary Detachment may be composed of units of two or more of the Factions that make up the various armies fighting in the Horus Heresy, as long as each individual Detachment is entirely comprised of models of a single Faction. When your army incorporates units from more than one Faction, this section tells you how those models will interact with each other.

 

Similarly this does occur in LI too

 

Quote

of Horus Heresy: Age of Darkness, the models under a given player’s control are referred to as that player’s army. Each army is composed of a single Force Organisation chart, which will include one or more Detachments, and an army whose Primary Detachment is selected from this Army List is considered to have the Faction of that Primary Detachment (for example, an army whose Primary Detachment was selected from the Legio Custodes Army List would be considered a Legio Custodes army). Other, non-Primary, Detachments in the same army may be selected from any other Army List, but each Detachment may only include units from a single Army List, unless another special rule states otherwise.

 

It just feels cheeky - what is meant by "may be" in both the core rules and LI here? If it can always happen, it doesn't mesh well with the expressions quoted above for Titans, Knights and K'abandha. And a free for all take any LoW leads to weird things - so many weird things - that feel wrong in the context of the game. But then there is so much of that in the game :(

Edited August 9, 2023 by Petitioner's City

[Noserenda]

Seems super clear that its intended to me, especially as Knights in particular were always available this way in 1st ed too. Im not sure its particularly abusable too these days given that most Lords of War plain suck.

[SkimaskMohawk]

1 hour ago, Petitioner's City said:

While I get the argument, I think it's cheeky as it is abusable - and people tend to use it that way. I honestly don't think SG meant you could do this except in circumstances where the ability to take that lord of war is explicit. It is - why do SG make this clear if it doesn't need to be said:

 

 

Eeesh, we're getting into the weeds of intent in 2nd editions notoriously written by different teams rules lol.

 

You ask why they felt the need to repeat something that was already clear/allowed. I don't know why, but they did it with sevatars universal warlord trait in Massacre and they did it with dreadnought ccw bonus attacks in 2nd as two examples off the top of the head. They repeat stuff unnecessarily sometimes for ease of player reference.

 

2 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

If it was always intended that you could pick any lord of war for any army, then surely the first paragraph would be phrased differently? "as normal"? 

 

This occurs with Questoris and with the big K, but not elsewhere.

 

Again, I don't know why they didn't say "as normal". But I also don't know why in the main rules you have a page that says reactions can be brought above 3 per phase if explicitly allowed, then the next page says never above 3. Or why they wrote jaghatai Khan to explicitly give himself furious charge 1 from his warlord trait, when his sword already gives him furious charge. Or why the venator is a bombard in one languages rules, but not in others.

 

The point is that there's a lot of oversight in general in these rules.

 

2 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

And I think you are misremembering K's language which is

 

Funnily enough, I totally blanked the italic'd text and just read off his warlord trait. I'll basically refer to my earlier statements on superfluous reiteration.

 

3 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

Like I fail to see how this allows a lord of war free for all, unless one is being a bit cheeky, looking at this text. It doesn't tell you how you can take a low from another faction - that is only made clear in the three instances above.

 

I mean, it's just clearly reading what is and isn't restricted by those rules. Its not cheeky, or exploiting punctuation, or assigning a very uncommon definition. You take units in other detachments by conforming to the detachment foc, keeping the overall allegiance, and mono faction in each particular detachment. That's how you take any unit from another faction; Allies are unique by being forced to take units from a different faction, but the mechanics of doing so are already there. 

 

3 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

There is the "Allies in the Age of Darkness" text - which I think is where this argument derives - but I honestly think this is an easily cheeky reading of it:

 

That's literally plain English, again, and isn't cheeky.

 

3 hours ago, Petitioner's City said:

It just feels cheeky - what is meant by "may be" in both the core rules and LI here? If it can always happen, it doesn't mesh well with the expressions quoted above for Titans, Knights and K'abandha. And a free for all take any LoW leads to weird things - so many weird things - that feel wrong in the context of the game. But then there is so much of that in the game :(

 

I'm pretty sure it means you can always have the choice. 

 

Again, it sucks that some things feel really weird in this game. A lot of stuff is written in a very inconsistent manner. It's more plausible to think that they went from "most LoWs get shared" to "all" rather than "none", especially after expanding the allies foc.

 

[Brother Lunkhead]

=][=

 

On 8/7/2023 at 8:46 PM, SalamandersBro said:

I would be able to ally one into my Salamanders or World Eaters army? As long as I meet the points requirements for a Lord of War? 

 

This question seems to have been answered.

 

This broader LoW discussion is off topic from the overall Cerastus Knight Lancer discussion. Let's get back on course please.

 

=][=

 

[Helycon]

On 8/9/2023 at 12:09 PM, Petitioner's City said:

 

Not at all, good friend. You have both the Mechanicum and the Questoris version of the Atrapos (and the same for the magaera, styrix and two asteriii). The only knights that is exclusively mechanicum at the moment (if not using house rules) are the moirax armigers. 

 

There are also those cheeky folks on the internet who misread the force organisation rules to say that because your lord of war can be a different faction from your primary detachment, you then can always take a lord of war from any list, irrespective your main faction (seen eg on Goonhammer and often on Discord) - nevermind asking oneself why then the Questoris and Titan lists, or Khabanda, tell us we can take a knight or titan either in their own detachment, or as a single Lord of War, using language which does not suggest it is normal to take a lord of war different from your main faction (just that it can happen at specific instances).

 

But if you agree with the cheeky interpretation then nevermind that a specific lord of war is just mechanicum, anyone could then take it.

Thanks for that! As I don't play heresy, I shall revert to your knowledge. Funnily enough, Arbitor Ian just did a video regarding the way Knights can be used in Heresy!

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to receiving mine hopefully tomorrow. I have some free hours next week due to overtime in the last couple of weeks, so I can muck about building it!

Edited August 11, 2023 by Helycon

[Xenith]

As the Cerastus is off Preorder and out into the wild, this thread will be locked - Further discussion can be had in the Imperial or Chaos knights, or the HH subsections of the site. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Xenith