Imperial Knights - Codex Preview Video 03/03 - Gasp! Probably worth watching!

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.

**SJM**

Siberiandreamer wrote:
Red__Thirst wrote:
Siberiandreamer wrote:
Think the point is that THESE specific ones are Imperial Knights and that the traitor ones will be separate.

I tend to agree. There's precedent for this in Epic as well. People need to wait for the chaos knights before they get all up-in-arms about not being able to use them with Chaos.

If the kit looks this good, (and I've heard very few people saying they didn't like the look and aesthetic of the kit in general) imagine what the design studio will give us for chaos knights.

Just my thoughts on that. Wait and see, everyone. Wait and see.

-RT-

It's like people WANT to be upset about everything. It seems fairly straight forward to me and fluffy. The codex is a bit baffling to me; but really so many mountains out of molehills.

Aye, that there internet be an angry place. Arrr.

**redeyed**

I too am dissapointed by the apparent lack of any infantry/support models in the upcoming codex.

The knights also had some fairly close ties to the Mechanicum in the fluff, a couple of those units even could have bulked it out.

I like many people intend to use imperial guard allies converted up to serve as my footsloggers.

**Crimson**

redeyed wrote:

The knights also had some fairly close ties to the Mechanicum in the fluff, a couple of those units even could have bulked it out.

Yes, that was what I hoped for; it would've been a good chance to make those awesome FW Ad Mech models usable in 40K.

**notprop**

The will be a new Mechanicum list from FW soon enough (or errata for an existing one) and it will almost certainly include Imperial Knights as an Ally.

**krazynadechukr**

Ahhhh, rumors, because sometimes the truth moves too freakin' slow...

**RiTides**

Given the reveals below, if I'm going to run one of these as an "ally", it kind of sounds like I may not need the codex, but the white dwarf rules will suffice?

Could be wrong, just wondering.

Slayer le boucher wrote:
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong...

2) Datasheets. There is a section in the codex, after organization chart, that covers Datasheets. None are mentioned but looks like these will be popping up in books...sorry everyone that don't consider them official, etc...

3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids

4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll on the Knight Apparent/Knight Seneschal chart. 1 - Knight is -1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 5+ now. 2-5 Your an Imperial Knight. 6 - Knight is +1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 3+ now.

5) Concerning Warlord Traits: They range up and down from being useful to 'meh'. Examples: +1" to Run/Charge range. +1 to Building Damage Chart. My favorite: Warlord gains It Will Not Die!

6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades. They are not even listed on the ally chart.

7) The Companion Guide is amazingly beautiful for coffee table style books. Its a big book, lots of pretty pictures, etc. It does not contain rules but for collectors its a nice buy. Average guy might not buy it but dedicated collectors will want to order it. I recommend ordering it in a Games Workshop, ship to the store for safety and protection of the book.

**NoseGoblin**

Jehan-reznor wrote:
NoseGoblin wrote:
insaniak wrote:
NoseGoblin wrote:
Wait...what... MSRP is $181 ?!?!....... You know that that's over $60.00 per sprue right. Oh my...

He was adding the cost of the codex as a part of the cost of running a single Knight...

Ahhh I-C

So now it is "only" 46.666666 per sprue!

Ha... true, New price on the Crusader, 12 sprues X 46.666 ......$559.99 LOLZ

**krazynadechukr**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Slayer le boucher wrote:
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight.

6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades...

I wouldn't give this any real validity, especially with a disclosure like that..... people are making mountains from even less than mole hills because of this one post.....

**Azreal13**

This individual has a perfect track record at this point, there's nothing at this point to suggest this won't maintain that, unfortunately.

**pretre**

Ugh, I go home for the night and have to go back 6 pages to find you again.

edit: Agh, whatever.

**Accolade**

Were people expecting a different entry for Freeblades and Mechanicus knights? I imagined they were:

(a) fluff references, aka Mechanicus

and/or

(b) excuses to run the knights in all sorts of 40k armies, aka Freeblades

**Kroothawk**

azreal13 wrote:
This individual has a perfect track record at this point, there's nothing at this point to suggest this won't maintain that, unfortunately.

He is (or has been) also a Dakka member.

**Yodhrin**

insaniak wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
People "change the rules" all the time, for any number of reasons, so why draw the line here and not there,...

Because people draw that line in different places, for different reasons.

You may not see any difference between 'We're agreeing to change this rule because we don't like it' and 'I want to use a model that isn't allowed by my codex because I wasn't paying any attention to the rules when I built it'... but other players do.

Nice completely fictional presentation of the opposing position there, very creative. See below.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
And when you're in less informal situations with people you don't know (as a lot of people here tend to be, playing pick up games at stores rather than games in a living room with friends), going "Oh hey, I'm playing 'Nids with this awesome Knight conversion" isn't going to go down well.

I'm sorry, but saying "the game has rules" isn't a cop-out. It's the truth. The game has rules. To play the game you follow those rules. Without those rules you might as well be playing with plastic army men, going "pew pew" as you fight, and then arguing over who shot who first.

And if we were even slightly discussing such situations you might have a point, this entire thing started when someone made a post that specifically referred to gaming with friends at a club and someone took issue, that was the context I argued in as well, so you see the argument was not "saying the game has rules is a cop out", it was "saying the game has rules in order to justify refusing to let a friend use a model they spent lots of time and effort working on, while simultaneously being perfectly cool-beans with disregarding entire parts of the rules when it suits you is a cop out".

If you're(plural, nonspecific) a full-on RAW rules lawyer, cool, more power to you, but if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them" or "we use our own deployment rules because the ones in the book are moronic" or "my army is counts-as so the WYSIWYG isn't perfect", then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy, and further justification is necessary. Not because you're not allowed to object, but because you can't object using a rationale that you ignore when it suits your own preferences.

**Slayer le boucher**

This think looks punnier by the second, in the next pics they will be the size of a Dread...

**redeyed**

I must admit, I'm not keen on the way the legs are posed.

It's basically the same spread-eagle position that the darn dreads/dreadknights etc use.

Thats' definitely getting changed by me.

**His Master's Voice**

Yodhrin wrote:
(...) if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them"(...), then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy

You're comparing a house rule accepted by all involved with someone showing up to play with a model they have but can't field. I have a bunch of models too, but when I show up to a friendly game I think it's on me to justify fielding a Leman Russ in my Dwarf army, not on the guy on the other side of the table, regardless of whether we agreed on previous house rules or not.

In other words, rules are rules and no Knight for you unless you can convince me you should get one.

**shasolenzabi**

Slayer le boucher wrote:

This think looks punnier by the second, in the next pics they will be the size of a Dread...

Smaller than I thought it would be for price, not much mass difference from a Landraider or baneblade kit.

**NoggintheNog**

Slayer le boucher wrote:

This think looks punnier by the second, in the next pics they will be the size of a Dread...

I don't know, it looks a good inch and a half bigger than the dreadknight which is standing on a half inch raised base.

The knight isnt as big as I'd thought it would end up, partly because the wraith has kind of skewed the size of these things in my head. It still an impressive model though, not worth the cost (you can buy a tamiya 1/32 spitfire or mustang for that sort of cash, they are light years ahead in terms of quality plastic kits) but then GW models never are.

**reds8n**

If we can please avoid quoting massive blocks of previous posts for little or no reason.
Thanks.

**The Shadow**

£25, not the normal price? Significantly less pages? No apparent non-really big units? Evident focus on our mutual friend the Imperial Knight Titan thing?

Sounds like quite a different codex to me, more of a spin-off. Wonder if we'll be seeing more of these in the future...?

**Zweischneid**

The Shadow wrote:

Sounds like quite a different codex to me, more of a spin-off. Wonder if we'll be seeing more of these in the future...?

Yeah...

Probably more akin (for better or worse) to this kind of stuff

Spoiler:

**Slayer le boucher**

New Releaces
Codex Imperial Knights (£25)
-> 64 Pages
-> Hardbacked
-> Warlord Traits
-> Knightly Ranks

Codex Imperial Knights Limited Edition (Direct Only) (£70)
As Above, with a Slipcase and Seven Full Colour Prints of Elevations of Famous imperial Knights.

Imperial Knights Companion (Direct Only) (£45)
Seven Major Knightly Households (Terryn, Hawkshroud, Griffith, Cadmus, Krast, Raven and Taranis - along with seven famous freeblades are discribed in detail.
-> History
-> Story
-> Elevation Images
-> Heraldry

Knights of the Imperium (Games Workshop Stores Only)(£15)
-> 126 Pages
-> Hardback
-> By Graham McNeal
-> Story of House Cadmus splliting from the Mechanicum to join imperium.

Digital Editions:
Codex Imperial Knights
Alter of War Imperial Knights

Jervis Johnson
Jervis likes digital editions because they let him release books that the beancounters wouldent let go to a minimum print run. Like War hammer Campaign books.

Houses and Heraldry
Four page article about how important Heradry is to imperial knights. Confirms there is a different plastic bit for Imperium, Mechanicum and Freeblade knights. Also, interestingly Imperial Knights have space for there "personal Heraldry" and Mechanicum knights do not, which is why the mechanicum knights have symertrical colour schemes across the shoulders and imperial knights don't. General impression is imperial knights are more into Heraldry and bluebloodedness, and mechanicum allighned houses are a bit more down to earth and buissness like.

Creating your own Freeblade
You can make your own Freeblade or indeed House of Knights. The White Dwarf Team have done so, and some of the paint schemes are quite epic.

Hold the Line
Battle report in the modern narrative style. Dark Angles with 5 Knights vs Chaos with 2 Lords of Skulls. Knights win.

Knightly Duels
An Interesting little game played with a knight paladin, a knight errant and a pack of playing cards.

Paint Splatter
This looks at the Green Freeblade (Gerantius)

Applying Transfares
Two pages of advice on getting the best out of Decals.

This Week in White Dwarf

->Small interview with Jervis about codex Knights.
Your Warlord gets some baked in stat bonuses, other knights may roll on a random table.

-> Small interview with Graham McNeal about the Novel.
His upcoming HH Novel Vengefull Spirit will Contain knights.

**dantay_xv**

Oooh nice picture. Looks like the eldar and tau are staring at the knight as if he emitted some noxious vapour from his rear ventricles

**Sleep debt**

dantay_xv wrote:
Oooh nice picture. Looks like the eldar and tau are staring at the knight as if he emitted some noxious vapour from his rear ventricles

LMAO!!!

**Alpharius**

You know the thread is almost dead when the Fart Jokes get trotted out.

**dantay_xv**

Either that or the knight is trying not to follow through

**Breotan**

Well, at least we have a pretty good size comparison now.

**RiTides**

Slayer le boucher wrote:

Very nice pic, thanks for copying it over here

**Sidstyler**

If Chaos really can't take a knight ally then that strikes me as a really odd business decision. You know it wasn't done for the sake of balance, because as countless white wardens (lol :p) and even GW themselves have said they don't give one feth about game balance. It doesn't really make sense fluff-wise because Chaos knights do actually exist. And it makes no sense from a business perspective because GW has practically been screaming "BUY THE KNIGHT (or 6)!" at us all week long, and thus you'd think they would create any excuse imaginable for an army to be able to field one (and thus give players a reason to buy one), even re-writing existing fluff if need be, like with the Tau riptide which shouldn't really exist, that by pure coincidence can ally with damn near anyone.

My brother in particular won't be happy about this. He bought the White Dwarf with the rules specifically because he eventually planned on converting one into a Chaos knight and now GW's gaking on him again, first with "Codex: Heldrakes and Cultists" and now this. $4 DOWN THE DRAIN!

Not that I was necessarily looking forward to the idea of fighting one of these stupid fething things to begin with.

**bubber**

Re 'not following the rules 100%' -
I recently played a game of Escalation at my house with a bloke I met on player finder. I asked if I could take the FW Great Unclean One in my CSM army as my Lord of War. He was happy to let me do this & we had a great game (I lost but oh well).

Also does anybody know if there is any fluff about Knights fighting with the Death Guard during the Horus Heresy? (what house).
Cheers!