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.

He proposed a hypothetical. It's his fantasy and I just forged the narrative a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:

 Elemental wrote:

Though DLC stops feeling like a good idea around the point where content was obviously cut from the initial release (or left locked on the disc in some cases!) so that it could be released later to wring out a bit more cash.

No different than The Hobbit being split into 3 parts (holy crap, that was annoying), or Mockingjay into 2.

And they're criticized for it and deservedly so. In the end, in every industry, you'll always have folks that look past blatantly anti-consumer moves because fanboi. GW (as well as Fox, Paramount, Sony, MGM, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc) are counting on that. I do my part and I don't financially support things that I don't agree with. I won't buy the eldar codex that was prematurely replaced "for balance" according to the fanbois prior to the release despite having an eldar army. I don't own any knights so this codex doesn't apply to me beyond just a theoretical disgust (both at the content and the production schedule). I didn't both seeing the hobbit in theaters nor buy any dvds because I didn't approve of the blatant cash grab trilogy despite seeing all three LOTR movies in the theatre (two at midnight release showings) and buying multiple dvd sets of it. I know my personal lack of patronage doesn't break the camel's back but it hopefully will make the stupid animal pause. The same holds true for me with digital products like microtransactions and DLC both in retail and F2P games.

 Bull0 wrote:
It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.

And the new hobbyists just get burned on the deal. I'd been in the hobby for maybe a month at that point. The only info I was getting at the time about the knights was from my local GW and the white dwarf. You had to have the codex in order to play the knights and with those info sources, you had no idea if more stuff was in the codex or not.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
cards are still 12.50USD, they've gone up slightly, since blood angels, but not by much. You're looking at some other country.

Knights were a 6ed release, they had to be faq'd when 7th came out.

This is really what the first book should have been.

And I wasn't happy over the last few months when I noticed that they dropped the price on the old knights codex to $33 USD. I know I paid more than that for the stinking thing when it first came out.

There's a very good reason why I never replaced that codex after the fire.

Knight datasheets from the Warden kit - Source is a helpful 4chan poster - Link: http://boards.4chan.org/tg/thread/39766555/so-i-dont-have-the-imperial-knight-codex-which-is

Thanks for the link. Could you put some spoiler tags around the pics so we don't have to page down so many times?

Okay

Thanks, appreciate it (the spoilers and you posting the pics in the first place).

You are welcome, also uploaded by Vida (Warseer) to Imgur

http://imgur.com/a/caq2P

So the rules are in the kit? Nice, maybe people can stop losing their minds about their "invalidated" book?

yeah,
My book is invalidated at tournaments.
They all require a player to have the most recent codex.

The sheet in the box isn't a codex and doesn't have all the options the most recent codex has.
No weapon profiles, warlord traits or relics.

Panic...

 Panic wrote:
yeah,
My book is invalidated at tournaments.
They all require a player to have the most recent codex.

The sheet in the box isn't a codex and doesn't have all the options the most recent codex has.
No weapon profiles, warlord traits or relics.

Panic...

To add some places and FLG and even a GW once requires you have the book on hand. hell i got in trouble for printing out my own personal copy of BL codex (which i even showed proof of purchase)

Some leaks it would seem... Couldn't link everything for some reason. But the formations seems rough. Looks like a boosted version of adamantine lance as well...

Thanks

Some more stuff... Warlord traits and heirlooms.


Not my pictures btw... Plucked them off the net (before I get flooded with questions... )

Oh wow. Baronial giving Overwatch and the Shield Wall is nice. The Skyreaper is also very nice! I mean, for the S7 Icarus guns, that re-roll is huge! I can see running that for sure.

Not too disappointed with what I am seeing thus far, except for the point costs.

 Panic wrote:
yeah,
My book is invalidated at tournaments.
They all require a player to have the most recent codex.

The sheet in the box isn't a codex and doesn't have all the options the most recent codex has.
No weapon profiles, warlord traits or relics.

Panic...

Serious tournament players aren't likely to care as long as the new book is better (it has more options in it, so it is). Lack of weapon profiles on those sheets is a bit of a bummer I guess. The old book had warlord traits and relics in it, right? So it's just that there are new ones. Or did it not have them? If so, holy hell, more evidence for that "You guys bought a total turkey" argument

Was hoping that the Gallant had some special rule or the like to justify taking a Knight that's mostly melee. But aside from being able to field a Knight cheaply I'm not really seeing the use of this type.

No, the old book had the two weapon load outs and a Warlord table, plus a ludicrous "roll a d6 to see if my guy gets better or worse" option instead of a proper Knightly ranks system you pay points for, but no heirlooms/relics.

It was a poor book, but there was utterly no reason to not buy it if you wanted to run Knights as a PD because it was the only option and no logical reason to anticipate a replacement this soon.

I still think FW wins the IK list game though.

As I said before, here's hoping that FW updates their Questoris Knight list soon so I can field the Warden with their army list.

Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?

 bubber wrote:
Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?

Yep

 bubber wrote:
Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?

Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.

 Zagman wrote:

 bubber wrote:
Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?

Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.

Yeah, either that or they allow LOWs, in which case Eldar armies will up up to the brim with Wraithknights (since the big "disadvantage" was that they were LOW).

I'm hoping they still with the no-LOW policy and set a point in the sand for how crazy they'll allow things to get.

 Zagman wrote:

 bubber wrote:
Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?

Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.

It actually knocks IK out of the tournament scene, at any tourney that limits number of LoW -- which is to say, lots of them. Not that this bothers me personally, as I never really imagined 40k as a game of armies composed primarily of 4-5 giant walkers. There isn't anything wrong with that; it's just not my thing.

Accolade wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 bubber wrote:
Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?

Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.

Yeah, either that or they allow LOWs, in which case Eldar armies will up up to the brim with Wraithknights (since the big "disadvantage" was that they were LOW).

I'm hoping they still with the no-LOW policy and set a point in the sand for how crazy they'll allow things to get.

Well, Mike's last blog post was aware about the change to IKs becomeing LoW and he said NOVA was sticking to its guns with no GC or SH LoW.

Talys wrote:

 Zagman wrote:

 bubber wrote:
Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?

Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.

It actually knocks IK out of the tournament scene, at any tourney that limits number of LoW -- which is to say, lots of them. Not that this bothers me personally, as I never really imagined 40k as a game of armies composed primarily of 4-5 giant walkers. There isn't anything wrong with that; it's just not my thing.

I'm more than ok with that as well. I do kind of miss the days when tactical squads, dreadnoughts, and Land Raiders were on the table.... maybe next edition, haha. I definitely do want to see 40k completely devolve into Apocalypse.

#KeepApocOutOfMy40K

Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.

I don't mean to belittle your concerns (and I do hope I do not), but this to me is the same as someone who is upset that they can't run a Warhound in their tournament. It may be fun for you to use, but it is absolutely unenjoyable playing games where half of your army can't do a single thing against the attackers. Knights may not be unbroken, but they are beyond bland to play against, and a full army is much, much worse. And when I say "can't do a single thing," I mean they *literally* cannot do anything. That's different than when things are stupid-powerful like with invisibility, where damage is statistically very very low but not entirely unattainable.

I realize of course we're talking about tournaments and the goal is supposed to see who the best tactician is, but there are obviously limits to what is acceptable in the games (i.e. the Warhounds). Things like Knights are great, they're beautiful kits and they look awesome. They just don't work well in this large-scale skirmish we have called 40k. Awesome in Apocalypse, but out-of-place in smaller affairs.

Taking the AdLance down to just +1 Inv save was a nice touch.

 Accolade wrote:

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.

I don't mean to belittle your concerns (and I do hope I do not), but this to me is the same as someone who is upset that they can't run a Warhound in their tournament. It may be fun for you to use, but it is absolutely unenjoyable playing games where half of your army can't do a single thing against the attackers. Knights may not be unbroken, but they are beyond bland to play against, and a full army is much, much worse.

I realize of course we're talking about tournaments and the goal is supposed to see who the best tactician is, but there are obviously limits to what is acceptable in the games (i.e. the Warhounds). Things like Knights are great, they're beautiful kits and they look awesome. They just don't work well in this large-scale skirmish we have called 40k. Awesome in Apocalypse, but out-of-place in smaller affairs.

And I disagree, somewhat. They are tough, yes. Absolutely! But you are talking at most 5 models at 1850, which means bare-bones. More like 4, usually. But I can see your point, I just think the kneejerk banning is amusing. Especially from my perspective where "comp" was reviled here in the US for years, until 6th and 7th, where suddenly everyone was trying to change the game - because you can only change it, not fix it, no matter what is banned, someone will get left out. And here I sit, on a Knightly Household in the making, and very few events I can attend if I wanted to show them off during gameplay. In the end, I can find tournaments where there aren't as many restrictions, so it isn't the end of the world, but the "big ones" are off the table sadly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
Taking the AdLance down to just +1 Inv save was a nice touch.

Well, there is still an AdLance. I wonder what they will do... FAQ the AdLance away or just leave them both in existence...

 em_en_oh_pee wrote:
Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.

So out off all those impressive 500+ gallery pics you uploaded, you can't make any legal multidetachment force you like for tournies? Or is the above just for dramatic effect (posted from a chase with your arm over your forehead)? Regardless of personal feelings that super heavies NEVER belonged in regular games let alone whole armies of them, you're not exactly giving TOs a reasonable chance to reevaluate and respondent to this apparent change before playing the "woe is me" card.

Yay! Knights are LoW now! I thought it was dumb that for some reason Knights didn't have to suffer the same restrictions as other Lords of War.

Also - Holy ! Objective Secured Knights!