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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
That would mean new sprues and more investment, and this is clearly an attempt to rejuvenate the sales of the kit at a minimum investment (not a criticism, I like it) so would never have been on the table.

I do wonder if when the original sprues were made if GW had any idea how popular it was going to be. I feel like they would have put a bit more effort in to making the legs somewhat pose-able. While I do like the Knight model on a whole, I really don't like the legs, and when you see so many of them all with the same legs it does really detract from the coolness factor.

 xttz wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Same model, ain't it?

sockwithaticket wrote:Aesthetically it's fine, pretty much as expected, but that pose is horrible. It's so similar to the other Knight model that you wonder why this didn't just come out at the same time (and then C: IK would have been a 4 unit book).

It looks like he's just walked into a bar and is standing there awkwardly after everyone's stopped to look at him.

Yep it looks like the same body / leg sprues as the original kit, just with new weapon and head options.

At this point GW's business plan is pretty much:
1. Find something that sells well
2. Do bare minimum extra work to make a 'new' version of it
3. Charge £10 more than last time

The Imperial Knights will look the same frame wise, just like Space Marines will look pretty much the same.
Anyone thinking differently is setting themselves up for let down.
Forge World does not factor into this.
Getting salty about this just makes you look unreasonable, because again it is like saying "why do my new Space Wolves look the same as my old Space Wolves, Games Workshop is being lazy" "Why do my new Necrons look like my old Necrons, damn you Games Workshop you lazy scum!"
Imperial Knights are a design.

It looks awesome but they should've changed the legs, or made them pose able to start with. Now there's 4 (5?) variants that are all identically posed. It was my main gripe with the original and adding more variants has just exacerbated the issue.

 ImAGeek wrote:
It looks awesome but they should've changed the legs, or made them pose able to start with. Now there's 4 (5?) variants that are all identically posed. It was my main gripe with the original and adding more variants has just exacerbated the issue.

There is definitely a market out there for someone to make alternate legs for Imperial Knights until GW gets the memo.

Hey!

My old Space Wolves look quite different from the new ones. Otherwise i would not have bought them.
And my old metal Necron differ even more from all the plastic ones... :-)

New models that look a bit different, but good will be sold.
New models that look a bit different but do not look good will not be sold (unless they do too well in the game, then they will be sold or proxied ;-)

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@xttz: So.. just about the same as every other company ever.

except you forgot to mention usually its less content for more

 SJM wrote:
"Come here so I may grab you with my tiny hand!!"

Anyone else feel the Powerfist arm/hand should be bigger?

No way. I dislike the usually completely oversized powerfists. Seriously, especially infantry units look like champion masturbators with those. That one looks about big enough for the Knight without looking either too big or too small.

migooo wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@xttz: So.. just about the same as every other company ever.

except you forgot to mention usually its less content for more

Most likely not mentioned because that is what is called an opinion, which may not be shared with as many as you may believe.
Most in this thread (which is to talk about the new Knights) are looking forward to these new Knights, and when it is all said and done, you will find most will be happy with them and eager to get one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kosake wrote:

 SJM wrote:
"Come here so I may grab you with my tiny hand!!"

Anyone else feel the Powerfist arm/hand should be bigger?

No way. I dislike the usually completely oversized powerfists. Seriously, especially infantry units look like champion masturbators with those. That one looks about big enough for the Knight without looking either too big or too small.

Agreed, I would not want it to look all super anime disfigured style.
I was at first a but bleh on the power fist concept but I will say it looks good.

 BloodGrin wrote:


The Imperial Knights will look the same frame wise, just like Space Marines will look pretty much the same.
Anyone thinking differently is setting themselves up for let down.
Forge World does not factor into this.
Getting salty about this just makes you look unreasonable, because again it is like saying "why do my new Space Wolves look the same as my old Space Wolves, Games Workshop is being lazy" "Why do my new Necrons look like my old Necrons, damn you Games Workshop you lazy scum!"
Imperial Knights are a design.

Knights don't have to be identical, that's my point. Just look at the original material they're actively basing this on: http://heresyandheroes.com/2014/02/27/the-scope-of-knights/

A far more apt analogy would have been GW not bothering to make a distinct model for Terminators, and instead given us an alternative weapon and shoulder pauldrons for power armour. That's what they're doing here; consolidating several existing designs into a single homogeneous design. Nobody buys sci-fi wargames miniatures for functional efficiency, they're driven by imagination. And this release shows a distinct lack of it.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:

Sweet, they used House Cadmus instead of Terryn.

I don't get all the fuss about cost increase frankly.

GW supplies you a product (imperial knight) for £85.

GW then spends money to design, develop, manufacture, repackage and promote this new addition, and in many peoples eyes, improvement to an existing model.

GW, being a business, then asks that to cover their costs you pay £10 (rumoured) per model extra.

To say its lazy on GW's part is silly, why reinvent the wheel when a simple update like this is perfectly acceptable? Its a fantastic model which now has more options.

Are GW supposed to do this for free?

Apple do it every year, adding minimal change to the I Phone and release a new, more expensive version and nobody complains at that.

Whilst i understand the rigid leg point, having made a number of these myself, it is a modelling hobby and i have seen plenty on people remodel the legs into different poses.

 BloodGrin wrote:

migooo wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@xttz: So.. just about the same as every other company ever.

except you forgot to mention usually its less content for more

Most likely not mentioned because that is what is called an opinion, which may not be shared with as many as you may believe.
Most in this thread (which is to talk about the new Knights) are looking forward to these new Knights, and when it is all said and done, you will find most will be happy with them and eager to get one.

You don't have tinned sweets there do you? every year the amount has gone down for in crease or the same price. But point taken.

 mixer86 wrote:
I don't get all the fuss about cost increase frankly.

GW supplies you a product (imperial knight) for £85.

GW then spends money to design, develop, manufacture, repackage and promote this new addition, and in many peoples eyes, improvement to an existing model.

GW, being a business, then asks that to cover their costs you pay £10 (rumoured) per model extra.

To say its lazy on GW's part is silly, why reinvent the wheel when a simple update like this is perfectly acceptable? Its a fantastic model which now has more options.

Are GW supposed to do this for free?

Apple do it every year, adding minimal change to the I Phone and release a new, more expensive version and nobody complains at that.

Whilst i understand the rigid leg point, having made a number of these myself, it is a modelling hobby and i have seen plenty on people remodel the legs into different poses.

+1 sir, for a very reasonable post and also:

migooo wrote:

 BloodGrin wrote:

migooo wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
@xttz: So.. just about the same as every other company ever.

except you forgot to mention usually its less content for more

Most likely not mentioned because that is what is called an opinion, which may not be shared with as many as you may believe.
Most in this thread (which is to talk about the new Knights) are looking forward to these new Knights, and when it is all said and done, you will find most will be happy with them and eager to get one.

You don't have tinned sweets there do you? every year the amount has gone down for in crease or the same price. But point taken.

Don't get me started, US candy is so inferior to UK candy that it is a crime.
I would choke one of my co-workers out right now for a Boost bar or a Lion bar.
And I do know what you are saying about the tinned sweets, same thing does happen here as well as with other things that do the less for more revisions.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 mixer86 wrote:
I don't get all the fuss about cost increase frankly.

GW supplies you a product (imperial knight) for £85.

GW then spends money to design, develop, manufacture, repackage and promote this new addition, and in many peoples eyes, improvement to an existing model.

GW, being a business, then asks that to cover their costs you pay £10 (rumoured) per model extra.

To say its lazy on GW's part is silly, why reinvent the wheel when a simple update like this is perfectly acceptable? Its a fantastic model which now has more options.

Are GW supposed to do this for free?

Apple do it every year, adding minimal change to the I Phone and release a new, more expensive version and nobody complains at that.

Whilst i understand the rigid leg point, having made a number of these myself, it is a modelling hobby and i have seen plenty on people remodel the legs into different poses.

+1 sir, for a very reasonable post and also:

Yeah, all very reasonable until you realise that GW currently spends around 24p for every pound they take in, including development costs etc..

When you consider a 4x return on investment is typical, spending a few extra quid on making a better/more distinct model seems well within their capabilities.

It's also completely missing the point. Nobody expects such products to be free, but they expect their RRP to bear some relation to production costs and consideration for the customer.

Moreover most of us expect price increases to be in line with inflation and/or have some sort of discernible rationale beyond 'because we can'. When this isn't the case, it tends to get people riled up.

A lot of it boils down to perception of value, you can see from a lot of responses here that a new weapon sprue that supplants the old one isn't worth £10 when the model is essentially the same.

 sockwithaticket wrote:
It's also completely missing the point. Nobody expects such products to be free, but they expect their RRP to bear some relation to production costs and consideration for the customer.

Moreover most of us expect price increases to be in line with inflation and/or have some sort of discernible rationale beyond 'because we can'. When this isn't the case, it tends to get people riled up.

A lot of it boils down to perception of value, you can see from a lot of responses here that a new weapon sprue that supplants the old one isn't worth £10 when the model is essentially the same.

We don't know yet whether it supplants or supplements the existing weapon sprue.

Considering that one of the loadouts has a Reaper Chainblade, I would think that they would have just packaged in the old sprue rather than put it on the new sprue.

 BloodGrin wrote:

 xttz wrote:

Fenrir Kitsune wrote:Same model, ain't it?

sockwithaticket wrote:Aesthetically it's fine, pretty much as expected, but that pose is horrible. It's so similar to the other Knight model that you wonder why this didn't just come out at the same time (and then C: IK would have been a 4 unit book).

It looks like he's just walked into a bar and is standing there awkwardly after everyone's stopped to look at him.

Yep it looks like the same body / leg sprues as the original kit, just with new weapon and head options.

At this point GW's business plan is pretty much:
1. Find something that sells well
2. Do bare minimum extra work to make a 'new' version of it
3. Charge £10 more than last time

The Imperial Knights will look the same frame wise, just like Space Marines will look pretty much the same.
Anyone thinking differently is setting themselves up for let down.
Forge World does not factor into this.
Getting salty about this just makes you look unreasonable, because again it is like saying "why do my new Space Wolves look the same as my old Space Wolves, Games Workshop is being lazy" "Why do my new Necrons look like my old Necrons, damn you Games Workshop you lazy scum!"
Imperial Knights are a design.

Fair enough, but I'm only a casual follower and can't see whats the difference between the old model and this one? New weapons? What is it?

*Edit: The source is Garro on http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/ *

Not sure where this is from, it was posted a few minutes ago on the german GW-Fanworld forum

Storm666

From the HH-Forum:

ok got some rules glimpses.
the gatling cannon is 36" str6 ap3 heavy12, rending

missile launcher has two versions

ironstorm: 72" str5 ap4 heavy1,large blast, barrage
stormspear: 48" str8 ap3 heavy3

the weapons profile also lists a twinlinked icarus autocannon (could be the other carapace mounted option seen in the silhouettes)

the fist is bloody funny.
strD AP2, and strikes at I1. but if it kills a vehicle or monstrous creature then it can throw the corpse at an enemy unit, damage caused is effected by the stats of what's being thrown.

Okay...being able to kill a unit and then throw it at another unit? It's stupid but I love it.

It was posted by Garro on http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/

Warhams-77 wrote:
It was posted by Garro on http://heresy30k.invisionzone.com/

I am not a member of that forum and thus can not see anything there, so translate what that should mean.
And is there any more said?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Points cost?

 Sidstyler wrote:
Okay...being able to kill a unit and then throw it at another unit? It's stupid but I love it.

This is so fething stupid it crashed the y-axis on the stupid scale and entered the awesome-scale from the top.

BloodGrin, I have no access either

Only this pic


Ninja'ed

Damnit GW.

I don't need a second Knight, but the ability to hurl a transport?

I'm excited. 3 of these too please Then I'll have 6 for total for my knight household. They'll just look cool all painted up even if I only use 2-3 at any given time and even then it's not that often

If one of those Knights is not a Thunderstrike Gauntlet equipped Knight painted green with purple leg plating, you will not live up to your forum name Hulksmash...

Hulksmash angry! Hulksmash HURL!

Stick a Hulk face bumper on his arm