dantay_xv wrote: Actually the bottom left reminds me of the transformers for some reason, possibly the decepticons, like the fallen or the little dude Megan Fow captures.... Or maybe I am going slightly crazy.... I cant afford one yet, but when I can... I am getting me one of these!!
On a side note (and I don't think it's already been commented on), one of the best things to come out of this release is the alternative/ official colour schemes for Knight Houses.
I've got a "BigDaddy" Knight Lancer and Errant sitting in boxes unpainted, mostly because I couldn't decide on heraldry. One transfer sheet, one look at this thread, and...voila, inspiration!
Lord Scythican wrote: Just pre-ordered 3 of these badboys from my local game shop for $99.99 each! I can't wait to put these together. My ork blood wants me to loot them though... Must resist!
WHAT?!? WHEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
My FLGS had them at that price. I am pretty loyal to the shop though. If they had a online store I would point you in their direction.
Gentlemen, on the rules page in the new white dwarf, page 24, you can see a fire dragon standing base to base with the new knight. Taking the fire dragon base i have extrapolated that the base size of the new knight is 7 inches across instead of 5 and a half like current flyer bases. a good shot of the base in the sprues and glue section confirms that the base is narrower and more elongated then current flyer bases. then taking the full body frontal shot on page 2 and three my math puts the model at a little over 8 inches.
This is confirmed by the fact that its 1 and a little over half times as big as the almost 5 inch tall forgeworld avatar of kaine its seen next to aswell. Hope this helps.
That conflicts directly with the information given to me by my spirit animal after I coated my walls in pictures of the Knight and dropped acid.
The fox king confirmed that it is 6.35" tall and curves slightly to the left as it enters our current reality.
I am currently constructing a sweat lodge in our crawl space and will report any further findings as and when they scream in to my brain on phoenix wings.
plastictrees wrote: That conflicts directly with the information given to me by my spirit animal after I coated my walls in pictures of the Knight and dropped acid.
The fox king confirmed that it is 6.35" tall and curves slightly to the left as it enters our current reality.
I am currently constructing a sweat lodge in our crawl space and will report any further findings as and when they scream in to my brain on phoenix wings.
This was the greatest and best rumor I have ever heard. I wish that you would commune with your spirit animals in rituals of ever increasing complexity on every rumor and report the findings back to us.
Starfarer wrote: It is a well known fact that GW rips off many themes for their units and calls them their own. A notable example is the chainsaw weapons, which were stolen directly from the video game, Gears of War.
It is hard to argue against the superlative nature of a good Evil Dead reference, but clearly the first to rip off GWs chainsword concept before they had it was Abslom Daak.
plastictrees wrote: That conflicts directly with the information given to me by my spirit animal after I coated my walls in pictures of the Knight and dropped acid.
The fox king confirmed that it is 6.35" tall and curves slightly to the left as it enters our current reality.
I am currently constructing a sweat lodge in our crawl space and will report any further findings as and when they scream in to my brain on phoenix wings.
The Fox King can't lie man. He informed me of that personally when I broke down my A.T. field and ascended to a higher plain of existence so I could be put on trial for previously questioning his judgements on the existence of a new blood bowl game.
plastictrees wrote: That conflicts directly with the information given to me by my spirit animal after I coated my walls in pictures of the Knight and dropped acid.
The fox king confirmed that it is 6.35" tall and curves slightly to the left as it enters our current reality.
I am currently constructing a sweat lodge in our crawl space and will report any further findings as and when they scream in to my brain on phoenix wings.
Exalted!
One of the funniest things I've read in here in a while!
I can't wait until we finally find out:
1) Just who can take a Knight, and how many they can take
and
2) Just how tall these things really are!
I mean, of course, that I can't wait until we can confirm the Fox King's report.
I'm not really seeing the point of buying the White Dwarf for incomplete rules...
You can see the pictures of the models online, and you still need to wait for the codex in order to field them... so why buy the magazine just to read what has already been posted here...?
Yeah I was all set to actually buy an issue of WD, but given that the WD doesn't give you the rules to field these things and the actual Knight rules are well and truly distributed across this soon-to-pass Internet fad, I don't see the point in buying it.
Breotan wrote: ... And since we know you can take them 1-3 as some sort of ally, ...
Yeah, but, for whom...?
I can totally see it going down well if I just rock up to a game with three Knights tagged onto my army and say 'Well, yeah, there are no actual rules available yet for taking them as allies, but someone can supposedly take them... so we don't know that I can't...'
There's also no way of knowing what, if any, other effect that is supposed to have on your army, or how those 1-3 are actually fielded. Are they independant? A Squadron? Something else?
Can I field a Warlord while I'm at it? I mean, Forgeworld are supposedly working on one, so there'll be actual rules for them someday... I can just make up rules until then, surely?
This is the first GW mini to inspire me in a long time. I'm getting all nostalgic and fuzzy just looking at it. I even went out and bought a WD today, for the first time in years.
I would love to read more 'fluff' about the knights, and especially about the humans associated with them. I might have to dust off some of the old WDs. I want to know, where does the pilot sit, are they hardwired in like a dread or more like a titan princeps? I'm hoping this new found enthusiasm will pass before I actually spend some serious dollars
insaniak wrote: Can I field a Warlord while I'm at it? I mean, Forgeworld are supposedly working on one, so there'll be actual rules for them someday... I can just make up rules until then, surely?
You start off with some valid points and then completely delegitimize your entire argument. ggnore
Sean_OBrien wrote: It is hard to argue against the superlative nature of a good Evil Dead reference, but clearly the first to rip off GWs chainsword concept before they had it was Abslom Daak.
Killing daleks with chainswords since 1980.
Uh ? Are Dalek not from that lame TV show about a doctor, his phone booth and his screwdriver ? What is such a badass though guy with a freaking chainsaw doing here ?
Breotan wrote: You start off with some valid points and then completely delegitimize your entire argument. ggnore
Explain the difference... In both cases you're going to have to make up rules that don't currently exist. Certainly fielding a Warlord would require making up more of them... but you have no actual rules for taking Knights as allies with your marines. You're just taking a comment from White Dwarf that says that it is possible, and making up how to do it. That's no more legitimate than making up a unit out of whole cloth... in either case, you have no actual rules for fielding that unit in your army.
Breotan wrote: You start off with some valid points and then completely delegitimize your entire argument. ggnore
Explain the difference... In both cases you're going to have to make up rules that don't currently exist. Certainly fielding a Warlord would require making up more of them... but you have no actual rules for taking Knights as allies with your marines. You're just taking a comment from White Dwarf that says that it is possible, and making up how to do it. That's no more legitimate than making up a unit out of whole cloth... in either case, you have no actual rules for fielding that unit in your army.
Insaniak, I don't know if this is Breotan's point, but... Aren't there already rules for a Warlord available? (And the Imperator for that matter...?)
Personally, I don't play at all, but I'll probably get the Codex when it comes out just for the fluff / background / painting inspiration.
Breotan wrote: You start off with some valid points and then completely delegitimize your entire argument. ggnore
Explain the difference... In both cases you're going to have to make up rules that don't currently exist. Certainly fielding a Warlord would require making up more of them... but you have no actual rules for taking Knights as allies with your marines. You're just taking a comment from White Dwarf that says that it is possible, and making up how to do it. That's no more legitimate than making up a unit out of whole cloth... in either case, you have no actual rules for fielding that unit in your army.
Your 'whole cloth' idiom doesn't apply. The rules for Knights are in the WD, except for the allies list. The only thing I'm "making up" is that a Marine army will be allowed to take one to three of them. I feel that's a pretty safe bet. It's also a very far cry from "making up a unit out of whole cloth".
Breotan wrote: ... And since we know you can take them 1-3 as some sort of ally, ...
Yeah, but, for whom...?
I can totally see it going down well if I just rock up to a game with three Knights tagged onto my army and say 'Well, yeah, there are no actual rules available yet for taking them as allies, but someone can supposedly take them... so we don't know that I can't...'
There's also no way of knowing what, if any, other effect that is supposed to have on your army, or how those 1-3 are actually fielded. Are they independant? A Squadron? Something else?
Can I field a Warlord while I'm at it? I mean, Forgeworld are supposedly working on one, so there'll be actual rules for them someday... I can just make up rules until then, surely?
It doesn't matter so much if they are one squadron or several, IIRC super heavies don't have to combine fire or maintain coherency and are counted individually for VP.
I'd be surprised if the book that has the full Knight rules didn't also have the rules on how its used in games (ie. a reprint of the relevant Escalation stuff).
Then again, maybe this is more proof of 7th Ed including Escalation. If that's in the main rulebook then you don't need that book, the rulebook and the Knight book.
And the P&P is an extra tenner, so it doesn't end up being a deal compared to other retailers.
Just wanted to drag this up as if the other retailer is Total Wargamer, which I think it might be, you could be waiting a very long time. Obviously the Darksphere P&P kills it a little but they are good for large orders and they are very fast shipping wise.
Also Giftsforgeeks and another one I think, they all come in around £70-£72 shipped once you do the math, except for Total Wargamer who are cheaper but as you say notoriously unreliable. I wish Edinburgh had an indie that stocked GW at a decent discount
I saw one today at the local GW store. It is a neat model, and the oval base is much larger than the current flyer based.
Still aint no eight inches tall though. GW is just trying to get you all hot and bothered... which means the Dream-Forge leviathans will make the Knights look small.
This is one of the last things GW can sell that mass amounts of people will seek out and buy. Be interesting to see what they try after this to keep the financial reports semi-stable. I predict full-blown titans within a year.
Harriticus wrote: This is one of the last things GW can sell that mass amounts of people will seek out and buy. Be interesting to see what they try after this to keep the financial reports semi-stable. I predict full-blown titans within a year.
Lol theres plenty they could do... when theyre in a pinch they could always drop those fabled plastic sisters we'd eat em right up. Oh and plastic T-Hawks have gota be within their capabilities by now. Theres no end of models that have been highly demanded with no product yet offered by GW. And when there really is nothing else left to do... they could always stop being 'premium' and try being 'affordable' to open up a whole new world of sales and potential customers; I suspect the drop in markup could be vastly out weighed by increase in clientelle as lets face it sticker-shock is their number 1 off putting factor.
Harriticus wrote: This is one of the last things GW can sell that mass amounts of people will seek out and buy. Be interesting to see what they try after this to keep the financial reports semi-stable. I predict full-blown titans within a year.
Oh please; they could "plasticise" any number of FW kits, they could bring back more niche mini-armies based in the Allies system, they could as has been mentioned finally revamp the Adeptus Sororitas, they could bring back any of the half-dozen Specialist Games either as full ranges or just as boxed sets, they could do dozens of things that would have people queuing out the doors of their shops to buy stuff even at their current ludicrous prices.
And even if, one day, they run out of stuff to revamp and rerelease, if they found they'd tapped out their Strategic Nostalgium Reserve, they could make a fairly modest investment in slide-core tooling for plastic mould production and then dump Heroic Scale, giving them an excuse to revamp their entire range from scratch complete with marketing blitz(so far as GW ever engage in marketing) touting their amazing and revelatory new modern aesthetic, Ferarri of models, yada yada yada.
GW's problem isn't that they've reached the limits of what can be done creatively within the 40K and WHFB IPs, their problem is that they're a publicly traded company that's focused on extracting maximum short-term revenue in order to pass it on to shareholders, rather than a privately owned company focused on providing a great product at a reasonable price and then using the revenue generated by that product to expand their business and carefully curate their IPs.
Harriticus wrote: This is one of the last things GW can sell that mass amounts of people will seek out and buy. Be interesting to see what they try after this to keep the financial reports semi-stable. I predict full-blown titans within a year.
Bringing back Epic, Adeptus Titanicus or BFG and making use of modern moulding technology would have people buying from them in droves, even if they didn't want to use whatever rules they bring out alongside.
With FW doing the 30K era Mechanicum, it would make so much sense for GW to bring out more 40K era Adeptus Mechanicus related stuff in plastic. They would be the perfect addition to add some spice to imperial forces.
That base does look bigger than the current 120x95mm oval base. I guess there could be some truth to the 8" height then? My DF Leviathan Crusader really hopes so, makes him an excellent GK Knight and finally gives me a use for that Excalibur sword arm.
That base does look bigger than the current 120x95mm oval base. I guess there could be some truth to the 8" height then? My DF Leviathan Crusader really hopes so, makes him an excellent GK Knight and finally gives me a use for that Excalibur sword arm.
Interesting.
If it does end up 8" tall, it will be quite surprising. In the video on the GW site there's a new image showing it being not much larger than a Trygon again. So if it's 8", we'll have had about half a dozen deceptive pictures showing it as 6-6.5", lol.
YakManDoo wrote: PP is the target not Dreamforge IMHO...PP has been releasing giant models throughout their range...this is GW responding to the changing marketplace...Riptide, Wraithknight and now the Cygnar...er...I mean imperial Knight. Glad they are doing this, but Dreamforge is chump change compared to PP and their threat to GW market share.
Just read this. I wish it was true. If GW is so worried about PP, how come we still have crappy, unbalanced rules then? If GW was so worried about PP, wouldn't GW want a tighter, WELL WRITTEN rules system in place then?
GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
EDIT: it's roughly the size of the Stompa right? So why such a high price? The stench of extortion surrounds this thing.
Bronzefists42 wrote: GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
There are two different transfer sheets.
One is included with the Knight, the other is an A4 sized transfer sheet sold for $20(which isn't that far off from the pricing of quality transfer sheets sold for scale armor/aircraft which clock in at anything from $15 to $24 for an A4 sized transfer sheet).
This is the Knight transfer sheet included in the box:
Bronzefists42 wrote: GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
EDIT: it's roughly the size of the Stompa right? So why such a high price? The stench of extortion surrounds this thing.
You don't like it so no one will?
Seems from my end that interest is really high for these things.
insaniak wrote: I'm not really seeing the point of buying the White Dwarf for incomplete rules...
You can see the pictures of the models online, and you still need to wait for the codex in order to field them... so why buy the magazine just to read what has already been posted here...?
I just bought my first WD with the new format. and I have to say I'm impressed! the incomplete rules is just the icing IMO. This issue 90% covers 'just' the Imperial Knight model itself. It talks about the history of the model (both fluff and model wise), designing the model, painting the model, building the model, tactics for the model. Its not indepth, but a great snippits about the model regardless.
The remaining 10% non Imperial Knights topic surprised me as well. It gives some interesting tidbits about GW in general, such as which issue the Imperial Knights were first introduced, bit of the week, pics of old GW models etc.
The paper quality is good too. the pages feels almost like cardstock rather than paper. Overall I would highly recommand you to at least buy an issue with a topic you like and give it a shot.
I think, GW just trolled the community. I mean, how can we have grown men talking to each other about 6" or 8" for a few pages now. Someone even said 5.5" I believe. That would be average size. LOL
Guys check out the release video of the Imperial Knights from GW! Its one of the best GW produced videos I have ever seen!
I think this is what GW meant when they say 'forge the narrative'. Really got me excited to owe one of these knights
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
EDIT: it's roughly the size of the Stompa right? So why such a high price? The stench of extortion surrounds this thing.
Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.
Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.
Nah, much more hilarious to have him buy a model that doesn't scale right as a proxy and looks much worse in comparison, because he couldn't bother to read the brief product description or even view the product photos of a $140 purchase, which detailed exactly what is included.
It actuly works quite well in this version if you do the 1SP/3 HP conversion like it says to do in the book, and is suprisingly well balenced (it costs 4000 points, or the cost of two mantas) and can be taken out via anti-armour after mass medStr shooting to take down those pesky void shields.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Yes, they're a single detachment. Are they 3 individual units, a squadron, or something else?
Unless you can find an answer to that in the rules published so far, there is no way to legally field those three knights without making up rules.
This should answer your question:
via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Yes, they're a single detachment. Are they 3 individual units, a squadron, or something else?
Unless you can find an answer to that in the rules published so far, there is no way to legally field those three knights without making up rules.
This should answer your question:
via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
Wait, they can't be scoring units can they? They're vehicles. If so, wow that's OP.
Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.
Nah, much more hilarious to have him buy a model that doesn't scale right as a proxy and looks much worse in comparison, because he couldn't bother to read the brief product description or even view the product photos of a $140 purchase, which detailed exactly what is included.
I think you need to add an IMHO to that "looks worse" because IMHO and quite a few others, that DFG Crusader looks a hell of a lot better than the gothic monstrosities GW puts out. As to scaling right.. one to one and a half inches really isn't going to be that big of a deal. Especially with the minimal amounts of terrain on most 40k boards these days.
Eldarain wrote: Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...
Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.
FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)
Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.
Eldarain wrote: Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...
Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.
FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)
Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.
15 AV14 LRMBT = 750pts minimum. That's 2 Knights worth. So 12 AV13 superheavies. Then you have the fact the Knight has a 4+ directional save against shooting and is a walker with 12 rear armour. So the LRBT can be taken down if you drop something behind them OR if you charge in to combat with them with any mid-strength CC unit which reveals that juicy AV10 rear. Then also have the fact that you have to remove 6 hull points to bring a knight down and thus reduce it's firepower, but only 3 to bring the LRBT down.
The LRBT have 5 battle cannons, 5 heavy bolters and can take sponsons. The Knights have 4 Battle Cannon shots, 2 Heavy Stubbers and a close combat weapon that means they don't just suddenly die when a decent CC unit charges them or indeed they can charge a monstrous creature and probably kill it in 1 or 2 rounds... in fact it takes at least a S7 close combat unit to even have a (small) chance to hurt them.
Eldarain wrote: Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...
Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.
FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)
Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.
15 AV14 LRMBT = 750pts minimum. That's 2 Knights worth. So 12 AV13 superheavies. Then you have the fact the Knight has a 4+ directional save against shooting and is a walker with 12 rear armour. So the LRBT can be taken down if you drop something behind them OR if you charge in to combat with them with any mid-strength CC unit which reveals that juicy AV10 rear. Then also have the fact that you have to remove 6 hull points to bring a knight down and thus reduce it's firepower, but only 3 to bring the LRBT down.
The LRBT have 5 battle cannons, 5 heavy bolters and can take sponsons. The Knights have 4 Battle Cannon shots, 2 Heavy Stubbers and a close combat weapon that means they don't just suddenly die when a decent CC unit charges them or indeed they can charge a monstrous creature and probably kill it in 1 or 2 rounds... in fact it takes at least a S7 close combat unit to even have a (small) chance to hurt them.
Then the Knights are also scoring units.
Overall, I'd sooner have the Knights.
Wha?
Check your maths dude, I may be being dense, but your numbers don't seem to make any sense.
Nah, much more hilarious to have him buy a model that doesn't scale right as a proxy and looks much worse in comparison, because he couldn't bother to read the brief product description or even view the product photos of a $140 purchase, which detailed exactly what is included.
I think you need to add an IMHO to that "looks worse" because IMHO and quite a few others, that DFG Crusader looks a hell of a lot better than the gothic monstrosities GW puts out. As to scaling right.. one to one and a half inches really isn't going to be that big of a deal. Especially with the minimal amounts of terrain on most 40k boards these days.
Seeing as I'm the one stating something, you can assume it is my opinion. As for scaling, I guess we will see when more people get their hands on the Knights, but many people are saying it is closer to 6'' rather than 8", which makes the DF models a good 2-2.5" taller, as well as being a good bit bulkier. Either way, as long as the players playing with them don't have an issue it really isn't my concern.
I was mainly mocking that post for it's "bash GW first, bother to look up the facts later" and had the added hilarity of calling a separate, optional item extortion. My dislike of the DF model was really just a side-note.
Honestly, I think that Knights should be scoring. They're a little more expensive than two stock standard LRMBT, and if you start to give either of those LRMBT's upgrades of any sort it brings them even closer into line. Also, with proper upgrades, those two LRMBT's could in theory drop a knight titan in one shooting phase, where-as the Knight will be hard pressed to do the same to both tanks in return, barring a charge.
Eldarain wrote: Scoring deemed too powerful for a bunch of Leman Russes in the armored company list. 6 scoring superheavies is fine though...
Well, 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV13 Superheavies. So in terms of target saturation, immunity to incoming fire and damage output, point for point I'd call in favour for the tanks.
FWIW I actually think its bass ackwards, it isn't that the Knights shouldn't be, it's that the Russes should (especially since the ABG isn't a codex list and the sporting thing to do would be to give your opponent chance to prepare.)
Besides, if AV13 saturation was so strong, Blood Angels AV13 would still be a thing, and that hasn't really been the list everyone is paranoid about facing for quite some time.
15 AV14 LRMBT = 750pts minimum. That's 2 Knights worth. So 12 AV13 superheavies. Then you have the fact the Knight has a 4+ directional save against shooting and is a walker with 12 rear armour. So the LRBT can be taken down if you drop something behind them OR if you charge in to combat with them with any mid-strength CC unit which reveals that juicy AV10 rear. Then also have the fact that you have to remove 6 hull points to bring a knight down and thus reduce it's firepower, but only 3 to bring the LRBT down.
The LRBT have 5 battle cannons, 5 heavy bolters and can take sponsons. The Knights have 4 Battle Cannon shots, 2 Heavy Stubbers and a close combat weapon that means they don't just suddenly die when a decent CC unit charges them or indeed they can charge a monstrous creature and probably kill it in 1 or 2 rounds... in fact it takes at least a S7 close combat unit to even have a (small) chance to hurt them.
Then the Knights are also scoring units.
Overall, I'd sooner have the Knights.
Wha?
Check your maths dude, I may be being dense, but your numbers don't seem to make any sense.
You said 15 AV14 LRMBT = 6 AV14 superheavies. I assumed that meant 5 Leman Russes, as 5 Leman Russes cost about the same as 2 Knights. So 15 HP on 5 AV14 LRBT vs 12 HP on 2 AV14 Knights with a 4+ Inv save against shooting and no crappy rear armour.
Red__Thirst wrote: Also, with proper upgrades, those two LRMBT's could in theory drop a knight titan in one shooting phase
How? Even with Lascannons, 2x multi meltras and a Vanquisher on both, that's 2 Lascannon shots, on average 1 of which hit, 0.66 of which glance/penetrate, 0.33 of which gets through the save. The Vanquisher cannons, 2 shots, we'll say both penetrate/glance, 1 hit, 0.5 hull points. Multimeltas, 4 shots, 2 hits on average, at long range only 0.66 glance/pen, 0.33 hull points lost. So, that's 1.167 hull points per turn, on average, 6 turns to bring down the night.
If the multimeltas get in close range, you improve your chances slightly, but only be about 0.16 per turn and if the multimeltas are in close range, the Knight is in charge range and you can kiss your tanks goodbye. You could upgrade one to Pask, but still you aren't going to do a hell of a lot of damage in 1 turn, and then you're talking about 200pts per Leman Russ before you add Pask.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: So you took my 15:6 comparison, reduced that to 5:2, then mistyped it so it appeared you had somehow equated 15 Russes to 750pts.
Ok.
Still rather have the Russes in many circumstances.
No, I took your 15:6 comparison, reduced it to 5:2... I'm not sure where I mistyped anything? I equated 5 leman russes to 750pts minimum, because 5 x 150pts = 750pts.
Sorry you just misunderstood after I misunderstood you. I misunderstood and thought you were talking about 15 hull points, which is 5 leman russes. Hence why I compared 5 Leman Russes to 2 Knights.
Either way... I'd rather have the Knights in most circumstances. In your 15 v 6 example, you lose 3 battle cannon shots and gain a lot of survivability and scoring units. The only circumstance I'd rather have the Russes is when they can sit far enough away and have enough bubble wrap that the enemy never gets a shot off at them.
azreal13 wrote: So you took my 15:6 comparison, reduced that to 5:2, then mistyped it so it appeared you had somehow equated 15 Russes to 750pts.
Ok.
Still rather have the Russes in many circumstances.
I'll be honest, I too prefer the humble Leman Russ Battle Tank (specifically the Vanquisher, Punisher, and Demolisher in that order are favorites, all others are also good and useful, but those are my personal favorites) as you can build them to fulfill a specific role within the Imperial Guard specifically.
That said, I am not above putting a lone Knight Errant on the table as both a centerpiece to give my force some much needed ability to deal with monstrous creatures, and have some additional anti-tank firepower. My guard army is Vostroyan Firstborn, so having an Adeptus Mechanicus aligned Knight rolling with an Imperial Guard regiment known for their strong ties to the Adeptus Mechanicus makes sense thematically. I'm not saying I'd run a Knight every game, far from it, in fact I'd only really consider running one in an 1850 point game or higher honestly.
It's not a fair comparison to look at a knight vs. equivalent points in Leman Russes as they fulfill two different roles. Leman Russes are not at all adept at close combat. They're a shooting & fire support unit exclusively, where-as a Knight is an all-rounder. It can shoot and also has some beastly close combat prowess as well.
Two Leman Russ MBT's in a squadron (Standard pattern or Exterminator, take your pick. I'd go with Exterminators though), with heavy bolter sponsons and, let's say a hull Lascannon come out to 370 points on the nose. AV:14/13/10, total six hull points combined and are much much easier to put in cover to benefit from at very least a 5+ or even 4+ cover save.
A Knight Errant is the same points cost, same number of hull points, does benefit from a 4+ invulnerable save on a single facing since cover saves for it are going to be fairly difficult to get, and is AV: 13/12/12.
Honestly, they're both good options, and I don't see one being amazingly better than the other. I'd feel like I was getting a good unit for the points in either instance, and points allowing, would run both together if possible.
Just my thoughts. Take it easy for now.
Edit:
TL;DR: Leman Russes? Knights? Why not BOTH??
I probably WILL take both. I have an IG army, I intend to buy a Knight and if I'm fielding the Knight, I'll probably field 2 LRBT's next to it... alongside Chimeras, Valks, maybe a Hellhound or two.
BUT, given the choice between 2 LRBT's and a Knight and I had to choose one (or 15 LRBT's and 6 Knights), I'm struggling to think of a time I'd prefer the LRBT. The LRBT is slightly more shooty, so I'd only prefer them if I could guarantee they are unlikely to be shot and near-impossible to assault. But it's not as mobile, easier to kill on all but front armour, suffers ill effects from penetrations, and can be taken down by a 100pt pack of Fenrisian Wolves if they manage to get in to combat with it.
Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
I was wondering about that two weeks ago or so. It really makes Knights awesome and easily worth their points. This is great news. Spending over 1K pts on 3 Knights is much less prohibitive when they're capable of winning the game objectives for you, and because you don't have to spend on actual troops choices any more than the absolute minimum.
Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
I was wondering about that two weeks ago or so. It really makes Knights awesome and easily worth their points. This is great news. Spending over 1K pts on 3 Knights is much less prohibitive when they're capable of winning the game objectives for you, and because you don't have to spend on actual troops choices any more than the absolute minimum.
Yep, for all I've said re LRBT vs Knights just recently, I will still be looking toward 3 eventually to allow me to field them as a primary. I'm more modelling than gaming orientated as a rule, but the chance to paint up 3 individual freeblades in their own personal heraldries AND have them be better than useless in game? I'm in!
They kinda HAVE to be scoring. Because otherwise, if they hypothetically weren't scoring, then if you play them as a primary detachment with no allies (which seems legal), they'd have NO scoring units on the table. And that'd be silly.
TiamatRoar wrote: They kinda HAVE to be scoring. Because otherwise, if they hypothetically weren't scoring, then if you play them as a primary detachment with no allies (which seems legal), they'd have NO scoring units on the table. And that'd be silly.
But no different from the FW Armoured Battle Group list, hence the to and fro about Russes vs Knights just recently.
via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
Great. So in their rush to publish a two-page codex to sell their new White Dwarf, they managed to forget about adding rules for Warlords or the FOC.
The idea that they were deliberately publishing incomplete rules in order to sell a later book at last made some sort of sense. Finding out that they just 'forgot' to include key rules in the article... And in their haste to correct that oversight (on Facebook...? Seriously?) they still haven't bothered to cover who can actually take them as allies... That's just sad.
via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
Great. So in their rush to publish a two-page codex to sell their new White Dwarf, they managed to forget about adding rules for Warlords or the FOC.
The idea that they were deliberately publishing incomplete rules in order to sell a later book at last made some sort of sense. Finding out that they just 'forgot' to include key rules in the article... And in their haste to correct that oversight (on Facebook...? Seriously?) they still haven't bothered to cover who can actually take them as allies... That's just sad.
I think it goes to show, not releasing the rules with the model is mildly annoying when the model already has a codex it can go in to, but it's very WTF annoying when the model doesn't have any existing rules or codex or anything to suggest what you can and can't do with it.
I wonder if they have a spiky bits sprue in the wings to make them compatable with Chaos. They came out with chaos rules for Baneblades, after all. This thought half way makes me want to hold off purchasing one until I know for sure, but then again, the imperial version looks plenty sweet.
Hopefully they fire together a free PDF for release day.
I think from what we've seen in the WD article that we can probably assume IG, Space Marines, Grey Knights & Sisters of Battle. Obviously it might open up to other armies, but just because the emphasis is on their allegiance with the IoM & Mechanicus then it might be jumping the gun slightly to assume any xenos or chaos options, perhaps even some of the Space Marine variants like DA, BA or SW.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Yes, they're a single detachment. Are they 3 individual units, a squadron, or something else?
Unless you can find an answer to that in the rules published so far, there is no way to legally field those three knights without making up rules.
This should answer your question:
via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
Wait, they can't be scoring units can they? They're vehicles. If so, wow that's OP.
Or it could just be a realization that the rule that vehicles can't score or contest was absurd in the first place, especially since MC's can.
It doesn't matter if they post clarifications on facebook.. Perhaps they could do some proofreading or actually play their own game AT LEAST a single time before publishing new rules.
So we have no idea who they can ally with, what slot they take up, if they're scoring, how can you play them as a primary detachment, or really anything other than points + statistics.
wufai wrote: Guys check out the release video of the Imperial Knights from GW! Its one of the best GW produced videos I have ever seen!
I think this is what GW meant when they say 'forge the narrative'. Really got me excited to owe one of these knights
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
EDIT: it's roughly the size of the Stompa right? So why such a high price? The stench of extortion surrounds this thing.
Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.
Sorry that was fit of poorly thought out rage on my part. No this will definitely sell well and I will be getting one (gotta love dem heads) but I was infuriated that they sold the transfer sheet separately. Part of my anger was that I really wanted the model but I knew at that price I would have trouble getting one (I don't trust those discount sites...)
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think it goes to show, not releasing the rules with the model is mildly annoying when the model already has a codex it can go in to, but it's very WTF annoying when the model doesn't have any existing rules or codex or anything to suggest what you can and can't do with it.
As there's no model available yet to use in games (at least as far as GW is concerned) isn't it a bit previous to be complaining about a lack of full rules? As far as we know the rest of the rules in terms of allies and FOC were due to be included in the next Dwarf once the feckin' thing was actually available, and they only added that piece on FB due to the amount of badgering they got. (I haven't bothered to check out just how much tbh, but if this thread is anything to go by...)
wufai wrote: Guys check out the release video of the Imperial Knights from GW! Its one of the best GW produced videos I have ever seen!
I think this is what GW meant when they say 'forge the narrative'. Really got me excited to owe one of these knights
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
EDIT: it's roughly the size of the Stompa right? So why such a high price? The stench of extortion surrounds this thing.
Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.
Where does it say you can get it for $115, because that's where I'll go to get mine.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Yes, they're a single detachment. Are they 3 individual units, a squadron, or something else?
Unless you can find an answer to that in the rules published so far, there is no way to legally field those three knights without making up rules.
This should answer your question:
via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
Wait, they can't be scoring units can they? They're vehicles. If so, wow that's OP.
Or it could just be a realization that the rule that vehicles can't score or contest was absurd in the first place, especially since MC's can.
Making it so vehicles couldn't score was stupid I agree, but making it so vehicles can't score accept these fething superheavies is beyond stupid.
wufai wrote: Guys check out the release video of the Imperial Knights from GW! Its one of the best GW produced videos I have ever seen!
I think this is what GW meant when they say 'forge the narrative'. Really got me excited to owe one of these knights
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bronzefists42 wrote: GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
EDIT: it's roughly the size of the Stompa right? So why such a high price? The stench of extortion surrounds this thing.
Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.
Where does it say you can get it for $115, because that's where I'll go to get mine.
I thought that too. I expected the price to be one $115. What sucks is I want to support my FLGS so I tend to avoid online sellers.
You can get it for $112 USD almost anywhere online. Most online retailers have a 20% discount on GW products. Try Miniature Market or the Warstore for starters.
Where does it say you can get it for $115, because that's where I'll go to get mine.
wufai wrote: Guys check out the release video of the Imperial Knights from GW! Its one of the best GW produced videos I have ever seen!
I think this is what GW meant when they say 'forge the narrative'. Really got me excited to owe one of these knights
Bronzefists42 wrote: GW botched this up again. I was ready to pay up to $115 dollars for this thing since it is one of the best things they have made in a while. Then they make it $140 with a separate $20 transfer sheet. Now we all know that the Dreamforge knight is gonna move like hotcakes now...
Congratulations GW you fueled your competition.
EDIT: it's roughly the size of the Stompa right? So why such a high price? The stench of extortion surrounds this thing.
Bronzefists42I think you botched yourself up again.... You can definitely get the Imperial Knight for $115 and it does includes a transfer, exactly what you asked for. I hope you can cancel your order for that Dreamforge knight in time.
Where does it say you can get it for $115, because that's where I'll go to get mine.
I thought that too. I expected the price to be one $115. What sucks is I want to support my FLGS so I tend to avoid online sellers.
$115 is the price you get it from an online discounter, including shipping.
Todosi wrote: You can get it for $112 USD almost anywhere online. Most online retailers have a 20% discount on GW products. Try Miniature Market or the Warstore for starters.
Where does it say you can get it for $115, because that's where I'll go to get mine.
Thanks for the info, I'll give 'er a look. Will the shipping eat up the savings, though? I shall see.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Good information, at that price, I'm getting three to start.
Todosi wrote: You can get it for $112 USD almost anywhere online. Most online retailers have a 20% discount on GW products. Try Miniature Market or the Warstore for starters.
Where does it say you can get it for $115, because that's where I'll go to get mine.
Thanks for the info, I'll give 'er a look. Will the shipping eat up the savings, though? I shall see.
Miniature Market has free shipping on orders over $99, so you won't be paying shipping on a Knight from them, and they have 20% off. Frontline Gaming does 25% for pre-orders on new releases and I think has $6 flat rate shipping, so that may be the cheapest price. I have used both companies and I have zero complaints. The Warstore is also a great. You really can't go wrong with any of those, but if you are looking to build over time Miniature Market is probably your best bet, as you also get points on purchases you can use to discount future orders.
HarryLeChien wrote: As there's no model available yet to use in games (at least as far as GW is concerned) isn't it a bit previous to be complaining about a lack of full rules?
A bit 'previous' to complain that the article showcasing the rules for a new release model doesn't contain the rules for that model...?
Seriously?
As far as we know the rest of the rules in terms of allies and FOC were due to be included in the next Dwarf once the feckin' thing was actually available, and they only added that piece on FB due to the amount of badgering they got.
If that were the case, surely the Facebook response would have been 'The rest of the rules are coming next month!' rather than 'Yeah, we forgot to include that bit...'... No?
via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook wrote:
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.
So tervigons as scoring units had to be nerfed badly, but 6 scoring super heavies are totally okay and balanced? 40k is getting more and more: "Who has the most Godzillas, wins!"
As far as we know the rest of the rules in terms of allies and FOC were due to be included in the next Dwarf once the feckin' thing was actually available, and they only added that piece on FB due to the amount of badgering they got.
If that were the case, surely the Facebook response would have been 'The rest of the rules are coming next month!' rather than 'Yeah, we forgot to include that bit...'... No?
No. The WD has room for rules only, when they are released otherwise shortly. A.o. because the WD can't be bought a week after release, and even before that only in GW stores, at GW stockists and on the GW website. And not even GW would release a product whose only rules go OOP on the day of its official release.
Why noone admits it on facebook? Everone who leaks next weeks release is fired. That's why every staff is afraid to even hint at the Codex coming in one or two weeks.
Breotan wrote: I hope Knights as scoring only applies to their use as a primary detachment. I don't see any justification for them being scoring as an ally unit.
bubber wrote: I just gave in & put in my pre-order from Gaming Figures (http://gamingfigures.com/). Cost was £72.25 with free P&P if anyone's interested.
I've used a few companies & these guys have always been great.
However thanks for posting after I've made my order!
Have you used them before? If so, what was your experience like?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Just looked & they have it for £68 but you have to spend 80 to get free 1st class postage. couldn't find if they do free standard postage if you spend less though.
Or it could just be a realization that the rule that vehicles can't score or contest was absurd in the first place, especially since MC's can.
So the solution is to allow an army of nothing but heavily armored vehicles in which each and every model is scoring and immune to on average 80% of weapons in opposing squads? There was a reason why the old 3rd edition IG all Tank force allowed glances on 6s to pen regardless of the weapon str and it still was an unfun army to face that most people in my store refused to play after one game. I dont want to play apoc at 1500pts yet that seems to be the route GW keeps going. This IMO would have better been done as @ 0-2 choice that replaced allies only but I guess that wouldn't sell as many models.
A bit 'previous' to complain that the article showcasing the rules for a new release model doesn't contain the rules for that model...?
Seriously?
Entirely serious. If we were having this conversation a week hence I could understand the complaints, but as it stands there's no (official) model to use those rules with anyway, so as far as GW's concerned, what's the rush? You used the word showcase to describe the WD content and if you accept the premise that these rules, as well as the background and painting articles, are just that, a showcase of an up-coming product designed to drum up interest, then I think it's entirely reasonable that the rules are incomplete. If they still are a week from now, complain away, as it is you're 'previous' by a week
As to why they said what they did on FB, who knows, could be any of several plausible reasons, and tbh it could be you have the right of it, but it could be I'm right instead and they just didnt (or as Kroot would have it, couldnt) mention it. All speculation atm; except for the fact the model aint out yet.
HarryLeChien wrote: Entirely serious. If we were having this conversation a week hence I could understand the complaints, but as it stands there's no (official) model to use those rules with anyway, so as far as GW's concerned, what's the rush?
Of course there's an official model. It's the one shown in the same article as the rules.
It may not be available to the general public yet, but it still exists. That's the entire point of the article.
You used the word showcase to describe the WD content and if you accept the premise that these rules, as well as the background and painting articles, are just that, a showcase of an up-coming product designed to drum up interest, then I think it's entirely reasonable that the rules are incomplete. If they still are a week from now, complain away, as it is you're 'previous' by a week
So you seriously think that they had always intended to release a second article a week later just to say 'Pick one of your Knights as a Warlord, They don't take up a FOC, and can be taken as allies in these armies'...?
As to why they said what they did on FB, who knows, could be any of several plausible reasons, and tbh it could be you have the right of it, but it could be I'm right instead and they just didnt (or as Kroot would have it, couldnt) mention it. All speculation atm; except for the fact the model aint out yet.
There is no need to speculate. They already told us why there are rules missing from the article: They forgot to include them.
The kit is extremely nice in its own right and while the full rules not being available before the model is out is slightly annoying I hardly think it's that big of an issue. GW have stated that Imperial Knights are an army in their own right so i don't think we'll be left in the dark for much longer.
Ok, this is one of those times we write red text telling everyone to calm waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyy down and back off before the thread is locked.
Knights existed long before PP. The design of this particular knight, if anything, looks like a classic beetle-back warlord titan. This model is absolutely steeped in GW history and that is not really too open to interpretation sorry. If you don't believe people when they tell you that, it is easy enough to verify, but there is really no room to argue the point, it is pretty objectively provable that knights are firmly of GW pedigree, and of very long established and classic 2nd Ed era pedigree to boot.
There is nothing it looks like more than that, and that is 10 or 15 years pre PP. So, if we can move on before anyone gets in serious trouble, that would be best for everyone I think.
Thanks!
PS - if this thread flips over to the next page and it all starts over again, please direct people to this post and hit the mod-alert button, that would be very appreciated and thanks to those who already did so!
Vasarto, this is a violation of Rule #1. Any further violations will result in a temporary suspension. If you disagree with other posters, do so politely.
So you seriously think that they had always intended to release a second article a week later just to say 'Pick one of your Knights as a Warlord, They don't take up a FOC, and can be taken as allies in these armies'...?
No I seriously think that everything shown in WD was a preview of a model and it's rules that will be released in full at a later date.
Do you really think the WD we have now, with its limited circulation, is going to be used as anything other than a limited showcase for rules and product? The days when all the rules you needed to use a model were given out for the price of a magazine are long gone, I think we've known that for some time, so I really dont understand the angst that not having all the rules for a model that you cant play with yet is engendering.
There is no need to speculate. They already told us why there are rules missing from the article: They forgot to include them.
Which leads me to ask: Can GW print ANYTHING the doesn't need an immediate errata? Holy crap.
And give people some slack about thinking GW ripped off PP. It's not like any of them were even born when Epic knights existed commercially. Hell, you're usually lucky if they have been been alive longer than this millennium.
But yes, it's still funny, and always makes me think of the Penny Arcade/Starcraft.
If anything, there's probably players out there that think the plastic beetleback is something made by "another company with shoddy models trying to copy 40K". It's quaint.
So you seriously think that they had always intended to release a second article a week later just to say 'Pick one of your Knights as a Warlord, They don't take up a FOC, and can be taken as allies in these armies'...?
No I seriously think that everything shown in WD was a preview of a model and it's rules that will be released in full at a later date.
Do you really think the WD we have now, with its limited circulation, is going to be used as anything other than a limited showcase for rules and product? The days when all the rules you needed to use a model were given out for the price of a magazine are long gone, I think we've known that for some time, so I really dont understand the angst that not having all the rules for a model that you cant play with yet is engendering.
I think they actually released a whole codex in two separate White Dwarves, back in the day. Sure, it was Sisters of Battle so it doesn't really count... but I wouldn't put it past them to capitalize on the fact that you'd have to buy two mags to get the full rules.
Well, the Games Workshop website now specifically says you can field them as an army of their own or as an allied detachment to "Imperial Armies" (which, if it's anything like the Inquisition, likely means everyone, including Space Wolves and Blood Angels). And even uses that to explain why there's a knight five-pack on sale.
warboss wrote: an army of nothing but heavily armored vehicles in which each and every model is scoring and immune to on average 80% of weapons in opposing squads?
Yeah, that is really annoying. I do not understand why they allowed that. It basically means that the only weapons I can use are inferno pistols melta, multi-melta and maybe, maybe exorcist missile launchers.
Everything else is USELESS.
I had already an hard time justifying taking a few flamethrowers. Way to encourage fun and fluffy armies…
HarryLeChien wrote: No I seriously think that everything shown in WD was a preview of a model and it's rules that will be released in full at a later date.
Even though the editor of the magazine specifically said that those rules are missing because they forgot them, rather than because they will be published later?
Do you really think the WD we have now, with its limited circulation, is going to be used as anything other than a limited showcase for rules and product? The days when all the rules you needed to use a model were given out for the price of a magazine are long gone, I think we've known that for some time, so I really dont understand the angst that not having all the rules for a model that you cant play with yet is engendering.
OK, so lets assume that the full rules are intended for release at the same time as the model... Wouldn't that be worth a mention in the article?
Because right now, we have no indication that the rules will be published anywhere other than in White Dwarf. If they were intending to release an actual book, either it would be coming out at the same time as the model, in which case it should be up for pre-order at the same time, and so would have been mentioned at the same time... or it's coming out later, in which case we still have the exact same problem of the model being released with no rules to actually use it.
There is no angst here. Just honest puzzlement as to just what you think GW would achieve by not releasing the rules at the same time as the model, and why you would think that this is some legitimate sales ploy when the editor of the mag has already said that they just messed it up...
In the old Titian Legion, the knight Errant had a Powerfist, not a Chainfist. i would gladly go into details off all the old knights and all of their glovy, if not for all my GW books being in storage. I do recall thet there was a knight "Lancer" that had a _____ gun and a Power Lance and 1 or 2 knights that were shooty only.
warboss wrote: an army of nothing but heavily armored vehicles in which each and every model is scoring and immune to on average 80% of weapons in opposing squads?
Yeah, that is really annoying. I do not understand why they allowed that. It basically means that the only weapons I can use are inferno pistols melta, multi-melta and maybe, maybe exorcist missile launchers.
Everything else is USELESS.
I had already an hard time justifying taking a few flamethrowers. Way to encourage fun and fluffy armies…
As an AC company player (and they're back now thanks to FW) I might might point out that Guard was the weakest army in local meta at the time, and that much of the whining around here at least was people bitching that their blessed space marine armies were losing to GUARD??? GUARD???? After having my face regularly bashed with foot sloggers, there was sweet, sweet vengeance to be had.
Perturabo's Chosen wrote: um, 5 minutes ago was a picture all all the knight models GW released back in Titan Legions, and now they're gone. Why?
Because it was in the middle of a train-wreck that had to be cut from the thread. People piling on instead of just reporting and ignoring problem posts is why you can't have nice things.
Having said that, if whoever made that post wants to re-post it now that the rest of the silliness is gone, that would be fine.
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but i just noticed all the Paladin and Errant knight weapons are one on single spruce, well the body and super structure is seperate on two other spruces. Looks like GW designed the core knight as a chassis that can have other spruces maid to create other variants down the road al-la rhino sprue.
Lockark wrote: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but i just noticed all the Paladin and Errant knight weapons are one on single spruce, well the body and super structure is seperate on two other spruces. Looks like GW designed the core knight as a chassis that can have other spruces maid to create other variants down the road al-la rhino sprue.
Or simply made the core chassis able to accept FW resin add ons, which is more cost effective and therefore more likely at this point.
Lockark wrote: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but i just noticed all the Paladin and Errant knight weapons are one on single spruce, well the body and super structure is seperate on two other spruces. Looks like GW designed the core knight as a chassis that can have other spruces maid to create other variants down the road al-la rhino sprue.
Lockark wrote: I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but i just noticed all the Paladin and Errant knight weapons are one on single spruce, well the body and super structure is seperate on two other spruces. Looks like GW designed the core knight as a chassis that can have other spruces maid to create other variants down the road al-la rhino sprue.
BaronIveagh wrote: As an AC company player (and they're back now thanks to FW) I might might point out that Guard was the weakest army in local meta at the time, and that much of the whining around here at least was people bitching that their blessed space marine armies were losing to GUARD??? GUARD????
So, you are telling me that because some space marines used to beat your guard, it is perfectly okay that 12 out of the 18 weapons available in my codex, including the rank-and-file bolter and the most iconic flamer, become totally useless ? Is it fun when a whole squad just become totally useless because they can not score, they can not damage anything by shooting at it, and they can not damage anything in close combat ? And incapable of doing damage is not an hyperbole here, they are not unlikely to do damage, the rules state that no matter what you roll, no matter what happens, they will never ever be able to do damage.
There is no angst here. Just honest puzzlement as to just what you think GW would achieve by not releasing the rules at the same time as the model, and why you would think that this is some legitimate sales ploy when the editor of the mag has already said that they just messed it up...
That's been my point all along darling; they haven't released any model at the same time as these rules, it's not available until next week so right now those rules are completely pointless in game terms, there's nothing you can use them with as far as GDub is concerned, so who the hell cares if they're incomplete (from the company's perspective)?
You know there's a Codex coming. I know there's a Codex coming. GW doesn't want to admit a Codex is coming for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum here on Dakka, so I really, really don't see why the fact that the Knights don't have their full rules available ATM is any surprise.
Knight Paladin: The archetypal Knight, armed with a large-calibre Battle Cannon and a giant Chainsword.[2]
Knight Errant: Highly suited to attacking larger targets like Mega Gargants. They carry fearsome Thermal Cannons capable of easily vaporizing steel or flesh.[2]
Knight Lancer: A faster version of the standard Knight, the agile Lancer out-flanks the enemy and scouts their defensive positions. The Lancer is armed with a Battle Cannon and Power Lance for close combat.[2]
Knight Crusader: The heaviest types of Knight made by Forgeworlds along with the Knight Castellan. Though slower and less nimble, they have increased firepower in the form of Lascannons, Quake Cannons, and Heavy Bolters in addition to increased armor.[2]
Knight Castellan: Similar to the Knight Crusader, but replaces its Lascannon with a multi-barrel Autocannon, giving it better firepower against enemy infantry and light vehicles.[2]
Baron: The leader of a contingent of Knights with razor-sharp warrior skills. As a sign of status every Baron has a custom-made Knight suit. Most Barons' suits are armed with power lances and rapid-fire battlecannons.[2]
HarryLeChien wrote: That's been my point all along darling; they haven't released any model at the same time as these rules, it's not available until next week so right now those rules are completely pointless in game terms, there's nothing you can use them with as far as GDub is concerned, so who the hell cares if they're incomplete (from the company's perspective)?
If they're the only release these rules are getting, then the fact that they came out a week before the model won't change the fact that they will be incomplete when the model is released...
You know there's a Codex coming. .
I know no such thing. We have no official indication so far that this will be anything other than a White Dwarf release.
Nothing's quite like an internet argument over speculation. Why not save the rage for next week? (or when the significant other gets the creditcard bill)
BaronIveagh wrote: As an AC company player (and they're back now thanks to FW) I might might point out that Guard was the weakest army in local meta at the time, and that much of the whining around here at least was people bitching that their blessed space marine armies were losing to GUARD??? GUARD????
So, you are telling me that because some space marines used to beat your guard, it is perfectly okay that 12 out of the 18 weapons available in my codex, including the rank-and-file bolter and the most iconic flamer, become totally useless ? Is it fun when a whole squad just become totally useless because they can not score, they can not damage anything by shooting at it, and they can not damage anything in close combat ? And incapable of doing damage is not an hyperbole here, they are not unlikely to do damage, the rules state that no matter what you roll, no matter what happens, they will never ever be able to do damage.
SM, Tyranids, Eldar, DE, Tau,, dear fething god, the fish, the fish...
No, the SM guy was just the one that stuck out, because he bitched about how unfair it was that IG had defeated him, and that the list was OP, because it was guard and he couldn't run over it in four turns.
I had been run over by the rape train several times, and it was nice to drive it for once.
Does that make it good game design, no. Was it a lot of fun to administer ironic vengeance on those who told me to throw out my Steel Legion and get a 'real army "? Oh, oh yes.
This was a rumor thread about knights coming. They came. Rumor over. Turned into a strange gathering of moaners, groaners, doom sayers, paniky petes, and speculators. IMHO. Mod, when ya' closin' this (dead) thread down?
bu11etmagn3tt wrote: This was a rumor thread about knights coming. They came. Rumor over. Turned into a strange gathering of moaners, groaners, doom sayers, paniky petes, and speculators. IMHO. Mod, when ya' closin' this (dead) thread down?
I considered, as the OP, requesting the same.
Then I realised we haven't seen all the releases yet, so if this thread was closed, another would become necessary in a few days.
Perturabo's Chosen wrote: um, 5 minutes ago was a picture all all the knight models GW released back in Titan Legions, and now they're gone. Why?
I got them all here if you want them.
But I think this is all that is needed
THIS is exactly what the future of 40K will look like, 1 player brings their funky ork army while his opponent brings 2 x 3 imperial knight detachment.
Perturabo's Chosen wrote: um, 5 minutes ago was a picture all all the knight models GW released back in Titan Legions, and now they're gone. Why?
I got them all here if you want them.
But I think this is all that is needed
THIS is exactly what the future of 40K will look like, 1 player brings their funky ork army while his opponent brings 2 x 3 imperial knight detachment.
That's pretty damn funny. Have an exalt!
Watch as 40K's next release is: 'to make moving armies easier, we are releasing special movement trays that hold an entire squad, so you can move them all at once!"
They could re-use the War of the Ring trays............
Perturabo's Chosen wrote: Nothing's quite like an internet argument over speculation. Why not save the rage for next week? (or when the significant other gets the creditcard bill)
You have misunderstood. There is no rage. Just mild bemusement at GW's apparent mishandling of this particular rules release.
Perturabo's Chosen wrote: um, 5 minutes ago was a picture all all the knight models GW released back in Titan Legions, and now they're gone. Why?
I got them all here if you want them.
But I think this is all that is needed
THIS is exactly what the future of 40K will look like, 1 player brings their funky ork army while his opponent brings 2 x 3 imperial knight detachment.
That's pretty damn funny. Have an exalt!
Watch as 40K's next release is: 'to make moving armies easier, we are releasing special movement trays that hold an entire squad, so you can move them all at once!"
They could re-use the War of the Ring trays............
Oh you mean these?
If they make trays like this for 20-30 models with would be helpfull for GI and Orks players...
Or it could just be a realization that the rule that vehicles can't score or contest was absurd in the first place, especially since MC's can.
So the solution is to allow an army of nothing but heavily armored vehicles in which each and every model is scoring and immune to on average 80% of weapons in opposing squads? There was a reason why the old 3rd edition IG all Tank force allowed glances on 6s to pen regardless of the weapon str and it still was an unfun army to face that most people in my store refused to play after one game. I dont want to play apoc at 1500pts yet that seems to be the route GW keeps going. This IMO would have better been done as @ 0-2 choice that replaced allies only but I guess that wouldn't sell as many models.
maybe except this is an army of absolutly TINY numbers. so it, theoreticly, should average out. after all the guns on your average troops are being used to clear out infantry anyway, if you're playing a 1500 point game you're only fighting 4 models.
BrianDavion wrote: after all the guns on your average troops are being used to clear out infantry anyway, if you're playing a 1500 point game you're only fighting 4 models.
That's fine if there are infantry. Otherwise, yes, you're only fighting 4 models... but they're 4 models that the majority of your army can't actually damage.
As was previously mentioned, this is exactly why the old Armoured Company list added in 'Lucky Shots'... without it, you wind up with a rather boring game where only one side can actually hurt the other. That's not fun for anybody.
BrianDavion wrote: after all the guns on your average troops are being used to clear out infantry anyway, if you're playing a 1500 point game you're only fighting 4 models.
That's fine if there are infantry. Otherwise, yes, you're only fighting 4 models... but they're 4 models that the majority of your army can't actually damage.
As was previously mentioned, this is exactly why the old Armoured Company list added in 'Lucky Shots'... without it, you wind up with a rather boring game where only one side can actually hurt the other. That's not fun for anybody.
And yet strangely GW has decided to relive the (bad parts of) the glory days of 3rd edition by bringing something relatively unfun like that back without the only token balancing factor it had along with the tradition of overpowered rules snippets (but in digital form via dataslates instead of "chapter approved" articles). I'm curious if the Legion of the Damned book will be the modern equivalent of the all Death Company 3rd ed WD army.
bu11etmagn3tt wrote: This was a rumor thread about knights coming. They came. Rumor over. Turned into a strange gathering of moaners, groaners, doom sayers, paniky petes, and speculators. IMHO. Mod, when ya' closin' this (dead) thread down?
Getting a bit premature? The knights aren't even out yet, we don't know what will come after the model and the WD blurb on them, a codex, more models, etc. We don't even know how tall it is
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AegisGrimm wrote: Yup, pretty soon with those, a hugely disposable income, and a 8x10 playing area, you can play Epic 40K in 28mm scale.
Funny thing is, I was always more interested in playing 40k on an epic scale than the other way around, lol.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Padre wrote: Almost forgot - for the Aussies out there, Mil Sims reckons they'll have the Knights for AU$125 +$7.50 postage anywhere in mainland Oz.
I think that's about average for discount places? There's a few discounters that give 20% discount, 155*0.8 = $124. So I expect a few discounters in the 120-125 range.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think that's about average for discount places? There's a few discounters that give 20% discount, 155*0.8 = $124. So I expect a few discounters in the 120-125 range.
Yup, just about spot on. I mention Mil Sims specifically as they're a long established, reliable and reputable store based out of Melbourne... and it seems a good price for postage too.
So the solution is to allow an army of nothing but heavily armored vehicles in which each and every model is scoring and immune to on average 80% of weapons in opposing squads?
It's also an army where they've got little effective long range AT (the melta cannon being only rather effective under 18" and the battle cannons throwing out a maximum of 12 S8 shots a turn at 2250pts, which isn't much), has basically no way to deal with AV11+ flyers, and would otherwise have no way to win a game short of tabling an opponent. Barring whatever allies clarifications there are, it's an army that is inherently one-dimensional and exceedingly vulnerable to a number of well established tactics. Woe be to the Knight player facing an SM gunline with a couple pods of combi-melta Sternguard for example (put the shield to the sides or rear to help with the meltas and the kraks and lascannons on the other side of the table get through free, set the shield to the front and the sternguard get a free kill).
Besides, there have always been armies like that which would ignore large amounts of one's shooting, what do you do against Mech lists (particularly Necron) that are immune to all of your anti-infantry guns? Just looking at some raw averages, if you could deal with entrenched Leman Russ tanks in 5E, you can deal with a Knight in 6E even easier.
There was a reason why the old 3rd edition IG all Tank force allowed glances on 6s to pen regardless of the weapon str and it still was an unfun army to face that most people in my store refused to play after one game.
It was an army that was absurdly easy to deal with sporting those rules, especially in 3E. If you didn't have fun playing it's not because you had trouble killing it with that rule in there (particularly as glances could still kill tanks and vehicles couldn't get cover saves).
One will notice they didn't reprint such a rule for the it's 2nd Chapter Approved incarnation nor for any of it's 3 FW follow-on's in 4E, 5E and 6E
I dont want to play apoc at 1500pts yet that seems to be the route GW keeps going. This IMO would have better been done as @ 0-2 choice that replaced allies only but I guess that wouldn't sell as many models.
It wouldn't sell as many models. That said, this army isn't as ridiculous as it's being made out to be.
You game balance killjoys are missing the fact that EVERYONE can take Knights to add to their armies.
Worried about losing next time your Orks go up against Marines, 'cos you know your buddy bought three Knights to add to his force? Buy three Knights to add to your force! Simple.
Vaktathi wrote: It was an army that was absurdly easy to deal with sporting those rules, especially in 3E. If you didn't have fun playing it's not because you had trouble killing it with that rule in there (particularly as glances could still kill tanks and vehicles couldn't get cover saves).
One will notice they didn't reprint such a rule for the it's 2nd Chapter Approved incarnation nor for any of it's 3 FW follow-on's in 4E, 5E and 6E
Couldn't've said it better. Lucky Glancing Hits was a terrible rule.
Ian Sturrock wrote: You game balance killjoys are missing the fact that EVERYONE can take Knights to add to their armies.
Yeah! Who needs balanced rules when everyone can take giant stompy robots! Balanced rules are just for TFGWAAC players, and everyone hates them.
- This message brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia: 'Cause winning is for losers!
So, I just realized that the +1 to Steal the Initiative rolls and the +1 VP for removing 3 HPs is only for Lords of War, it's not an inherent thing for all super-heavies. I wonder if that's how the Knights will be, or if the next White Dwarf or the codex will amend that.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I do not understand why they allowed that. It basically means that the only weapons I can use are inferno pistols melta, multi-melta and maybe, maybe exorcist missile launchers.
Everything else is USELESS.
I had already an hard time justifying taking a few flamethrowers. Way to encourage fun and fluffy armies…
I think, GW's current business model is the following:
1.) Don't expect any new customers.
2.) Don't count on existing customers to start a new army.
3.) Expand the rules so that the player with the most new 100$+ Godzilla kits wins with every ordinary army just watching helplessly.
In other words: They don't care about existing armies, they change rules so that only new products have any chance of winning: "Pay to win!"
insaniak wrote:
You know there's a Codex coming. .
I know no such thing. We have no official indication so far that this will be anything other than a White Dwarf release.
Accept the fact that March has 3 more release weekends to fill, that GW staff is mortally afraid to talk about future releases and that on release day, the only official ruleset has got discontinued. We will see a rules release for this new army, most probably announced in the WD standing nex t to the new boxes.
Ian Sturrock wrote:You game balance killjoys are missing the fact that EVERYONE can take Knights to add to their armies.
Finally my Tyranids can get what they always wanted to stay competitive in this game: Imperial Knights! May I take a Godzilla toy as count as, pretty please?
Seriously, only Imperial armies are allowed to take this super heavy:
"Yes, game balance is preserved, as everyone can buy an Imperial Knight army."
BaronIveagh wrote: SM, Tyranids, Eldar, DE, Tau,, dear fething god, the fish, the fish...
No, the SM guy was just the one that stuck out, because he bitched about how unfair it was that IG had defeated him, and that the list was OP, because it was guard and he couldn't run over it in four turns.
I had been run over by the rape train several times, and it was nice to drive it for once.
Does that make it good game design, no. Was it a lot of fun to administer ironic vengeance on those who told me to throw out my Steel Legion and get a 'real army "? Oh, oh yes.
How is that in any way to the fact an all-Knight army (so, NOT an Imperial Guard army) is a very bad idea because it is totally immune to most weapons of opposing armies, and makes most troops even more useless than before ?
Ian Sturrock wrote: You game balance killjoys are missing the fact that EVERYONE can take Knights to add to their armies.
Worried about losing next time your Orks go up against Marines, 'cos you know your buddy bought three Knights to add to his force? Buy three Knights to add to your force! Simple.
Same here, how does that fix the problem that most of the weapons from my army will be totally useless against the Knights ? Are you really saying that instead of complaining, I should just switch to playing an all-Knight army myself or something ? Did it not occur to you that this would not solve my problem (bolters and flamethrowers being useless), but would only cost me money and drive me away from the army that I want to play because of its fluff and models ?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kroothawk wrote: "Yes, game balance is preserved, as everyone can buy an Imperial Knight army."
The game is balanced : you can play mirror match if you just buy a copy of everything on your opponent's army list .
Vaktathi wrote: It was an army that was absurdly easy to deal with sporting those rules, especially in 3E. If you didn't have fun playing it's not because you had trouble killing it with that rule in there (particularly as glances could still kill tanks and vehicles couldn't get cover saves).
One will notice they didn't reprint such a rule for the it's 2nd Chapter Approved incarnation nor for any of it's 3 FW follow-on's in 4E, 5E and 6E
Couldn't've said it better. Lucky Glancing Hits was a terrible rule.
Ian Sturrock wrote: You game balance killjoys are missing the fact that EVERYONE can take Knights to add to their armies.
Yeah! Who needs balanced rules when everyone can take giant stompy robots! Balanced rules are just for TFGWAAC players, and everyone hates them.
- This message brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia: 'Cause winning is for losers!
And remember, its not power gaming when FAACers do it, its "tactical".
AegisGrimm wrote: Yup, pretty soon with those, a hugely disposable income, and a 8x10 playing area, you can play Epic 40K in 28mm scale.
of course would that alos not mean you could use epic models to play 40K?
Some fellow did it years ago. He called it Travel 40K and used Epic figures on individual drawing pins. His battleground was in folding case and made from polysyrene. He used 40k points with scaled down weapon ranges.
ncshooter426 wrote: Hehe... they ninja edited their description to reflect 6" size on site:
"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine. Crafted in the Dark Age of Technology... "
LOL, good catch. Well I guess all the estimates from damned near every picture that was leaked was correct. Where are all the people who said we were measuring it incorrectly? Told ya so
Ah well, it's a shame though, I would have liked an 8" Knight. $155AUD for something only mildly larger than a Trygon is a bit disappointing.
Alpharius I'll go ahead andstep up and apologize that GW can't make a model in the same league as the Dreamforge Leviathans, Nore could they manage to get the rules in one location, nore could they get the size right on their website or be able to compete pricewise with the megacorporation that is Dreamforge-games.com. After all GW has only beenaround a few years while DFG has a long history of putting out the best models in the HHHobby
These models look awesome, but that $140 price tag has me laughing so hard my sides hurt. Really GW? $140 for a 6" tall plastic model? Yeah was drooling a bit over the pics, but the price certainly brought me to my senses and now I won't have to worry about giving in and stepping back from my "no more GW mini purchases" position. If this model was even remotely reasonably priced it would be really tempting.
Thanks GW for making it easier for me to stick to my guns!
ncshooter426 wrote: Hehe... they ninja edited their description to reflect 6" size on site:
"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine. Crafted in the Dark Age of Technology... "
Haha, indeed! I wonder if it was a mistake or a "mistake."
That's what I was thinking, but I imagine it's possible to just cancel a pre-order (it's GW though so maybe not, haven't ever tried myself) so I don't see the point in being deceptive. Unless they were just hoping no one noticed until the knights showed up and by then it's too late since GW coudl just refuse a return, and can point to their website in case someone tries to accuse them of false advertising.
That's more than a bit disappointing, though. $140 for a model that barely stands any taller than a trygon, which is more than half the price, is insanity. And that wasn't even a very reasonable price point at the assumed 8" height, either, in my opinion. Nice-looking model but seriously, feth that noise.
I assume this means similar kits, like the trygon, riptide etc., will double in price at some point to better match the knight, since GW surely wouldn't be ignorant to this fact themselves. Could be one of the reasons why they're shortening the edition cycle, too...maybe they're reluctant to go back to their old model of yearly price increases considering the recent issue with their stocks falling, in fear of losing even more sales, so faster edition cycles leads to faster updates for armies, which means they can increase prices almost as often as they used to while still attempting to maintain the illusion that they've stopped doing that. Or they're just taking advantage of the popularity of Space Marines and jacking the prices up on a kit every SM player is going to want, I dunno. In any case $140 is fething stupid.
Not sure what size has to do with the price. It's all penny plastic and cardboard, not like the materials are worth anything to begin with. The pricing on GW kits was and always will be artificial.
On the other hand, if anyone insists on size pricing then the Knight seems to be a steal as it's way more bulky than either Riptide or Trygon, as evidenced in this very thread.
insaniak wrote: I'm not really seeing the point of buying the White Dwarf for incomplete rules...
You can see the pictures of the models online, and you still need to wait for the codex in order to field them... so why buy the magazine just to read what has already been posted here...?
ncshooter426 wrote: Hehe... they ninja edited their description to reflect 6" size on site:
"At 6 inches tall the Imperial Knight is a towering war engine. Crafted in the Dark Age of Technology... "
How can you possibly be that far off . Well, at least they fixed it rather quickly.
Let's not forget that they are English and use the metric system, except when writing rules, then they go with inches. Either that or they ordered it to be 8". But then the higher ups screamed that prices needed to be cut, so they scaled it down just to save a few pence, then figured it would cost to much to change the size on all the webpages
Conspiracy theory here - gw made a model 6" tall, knowing folks buy or might buy other (i.e, df) models out there to serve as proxy iks. Df are either 4.6 or 8.5 inches tall (15mm & 28mm). One to short and one too tall. (Gw made their ik smack in the middle!) So, they (gw) let (gw) haters go and buy df 8.5, misguiding gw hater folks to think iks are 8" and then, viola, after weekend preorders, correct it to show 6". Lol. Sly dogs.
It comes with one sheet, and then there's another sheet that's direct only. Because you know, when you're asking people to blow $140 on a tiny little 6" toy the last thing you want to do is throw them a bone and give them two whole transfer sheets for that money. That would just be entitlement on our part.
bu11etmagn3tt wrote: Conspiracy theory here - gw made a model 6" tall, knowing folks buy or might buy other (i.e, df) models out there to serve as proxy iks. Df are either 4.6 or 8.5 inches tall (15mm & 28mm). One to short and one too tall. So, they (gw) let (gw) haters go and buy df 8.5, misguiding gw hater folks to think iks are 8" and then, viola, after weekend preorders, correct it to show 6". Sly dogs.
This is making a massive assumption that other players give a monkeys.
I use a Mierce Krull as a Bloodthirster (not sure of height, but is enormous) and several FWGD's in normal 40K as normal GDs, rather than the Lords from Appc they're supposed to represent.
Playing a larger model has essentially no advantage, and while it might be an issue in competitive play, I've yet to encounter another player who's reaction has been anything other than "wow, cool model."
Playing the too small version could perhaps attract some slightly more valid criticism, but the 28mm version would be fine by me, and I suspect the overwhelming majority of other players.
bu11etmagn3tt wrote: Conspiracy theory here - gw made a model 6" tall, knowing folks buy or might buy other (i.e, df) models out there to serve as proxy iks. Df are either 4.6 or 8.5 inches tall (15mm & 28mm). One to short and one too tall. (Gw made their ik smack in the middle!) So, they (gw) let (gw) haters go and buy df 8.5, misguiding gw hater folks to think iks are 8" and then, viola, after weekend preorders, correct it to show 6". Lol. Sly dogs.
Yes, GW are trying to trick people in to buying another company's models!
...wait, I see a slight flaw in your conspiracy theory
bu11etmagn3tt wrote: Conspiracy theory here - gw made a model 6" tall, knowing folks buy or might buy other (i.e, df) models out there to serve as proxy iks. Df are either 4.6 or 8.5 inches tall (15mm & 28mm). One to short and one too tall. (Gw made their ik smack in the middle!) So, they (gw) let (gw) haters go and buy df 8.5, misguiding gw hater folks to think iks are 8" and then, viola, after weekend preorders, correct it to show 6". Lol. Sly dogs.
Yes, GW are trying to trick people in to buying another company's models!
...wait, I see a slight flaw in your conspiracy theory
I am not seriously suggesting that everyone should buy 3 Knights.
I am, instead, agreeing with earlier posters, that GW doesn't give a fig for game balance, but knows that Knights will sell like hot cakes.
I keep reading this and i just dont see it.
The model is both inferiorly engeniered and astronomically overpriced, the only thing it has going for it are its aethetics. I recon it will sell some but that is it.
I think it'll sell quite a few. Well, "quite a few" given that it costs that much. If it were priced lower it'd sell a crap ton, but I still think it'll sell quite well. Aesthetics go a long way to selling a model and this thread alone shows a lot of people like the aesthetic.
As to how many they will sell, I'd wager one internet dollar that over the next 12 months GW will sell between a metric buttload and an English gak load of these Knight-don't-call-me-Titan models.
kronk wrote: As to how many they will sell, I'd wager one internet dollar that over the next 12 months GW will sell between a metric buttload and an English gak load of these Knight-don't-call-me-Titan models.
MWHistorian wrote: I always look at the engineering that goes into a model first. How it looks and rules are a distant second.
(sarcasm now deactivated.)
I imagine you dont, but i am prety certain you do look on other aesthetic things like how dinamically it is possed or what its articulations let you do with it, that is the engineering im talking about brainiac.
It comes with one sheet, and then there's another sheet that's direct only. Because you know, when you're asking people to blow $140 on a tiny little 6" toy the last thing you want to do is throw them a bone and give them two whole transfer sheets for that money. That would just be entitlement on our part.
The $20 transfer sheet is for the "House Hawkshroud", "House Degallio", "House Griffith", "House Mortan", "House Krast", "House Vulker", and then four specific Freeblade Knights(Crimson Reaper, the Forgotten Knight, The White Warden, and Amaranthine).
The sheet included is House Terryn, Hawkshroud, Cadmus, Taranis, Raven, and a single Freeblade(Obsidian Knight).
I don't know why there's duplication for Hawkshroud but eh. I guess it might be because the emblems look cool and they might get some play for Valkyries?
Conspiracy theory #2 - GW hates leaks. They give each person on the project a different size of the model. 6", 6.5", 7", 7.5", 8", or bigger than this/smaller than that... in order to zoom in on the "mole" at GW....... Plug the leak GW! Plug it!
MWHistorian wrote: I always look at the engineering that goes into a model first. How it looks and rules are a distant second.
(sarcasm now deactivated.)
I imagine you dont, but i am prety certain you do look on other aesthetic things like how dinamically it is possed or what its articulations let you do with it, that is the engineering im talking about brainiac.
Articulation only matters to me if I don't like the pose. When I buy a model, I'm buying a model, not an action figure, for the most part I don't care about articulation as long as it looks cool.
If the pose is horrendous, then I'd rather have it articulated.
Many of my favourite models are single piece and/or mono-pose.
It's a shame about the height.
Might well get a DF Mortis to act as a Chaos version. I'll use the GW one I ordered in my loyalist HH Death Guard army using the Obsidian transfers over a reverse of the Death Guard scheme (ie dark olive green with light grey knee & shoulder pads) to tie the force together.
My conspiracy theory is that GW actually leak the pictures themselves, ensuring that they're pretty crappy photos (glare & bent pages) to start the rumour mongering.
I have also heard that during a directors' meeting, the falling sales were discussed & the result was the strategy to raise prices to increase sales. What I have written is NOT a typo!
I was not expecting this, but a reader here emailed in to GW customer service and got a reply on who can take Imperial Knights as allies. The answer was any 40k army......
I still expect something along the lines of a codex of sorts to come out this month, that clears this up as well. This definitely gives some good insight though into what may be the direction its going to go.
via a Reader here on Faeit 212 Here's a reply I got from GW Customer Service regarding the key question, can Chaos ally with Knights?
From: UK Customer Services
Date: 24 February 2014
To:
Subject: Re: Imperial Knights
Hi
Thanks for the email, the rules printed in this week's issue of White Dwarf state that "They may also be taken as allies; you can include up to three Imperial Knights as a single allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army" As such any 40k army can take them as a allied detachment.
Perhaps the persuasive nature of Slaanesh has convinced a Freelance household to work for Chaos, or maybe they just pay better than the Forces of the Imperium.
We hope this helps and that you enjoy the new Imperial Knights.
So at GW Customer Services they say that they can ally with anyone.
So for those who are" yeah but for some armies it doesn't make sens to take Knights.
For Tau's;
For Crons use this has a base to some conversion work.
Heck if you can put some giant bots legs under it, or convert it with Bigger claw like legs.
bubber wrote: Whenever I've phoned GW customer service I've found that, when it comes to rules, they know diddly squat.
Quite.
Rules queries answered by GWCS are somewhere similar in the grand scheme to rumours of new releases from Redshirts, ie. Some of them will inevitably be correct, but that's probably more down to coincidence than any sort of informed opinion.
In terms of ordering Knights in the UK is anybody else experience problems trying to use Dark Sphere's website? I can't seem to view anything beyond the first page.
Medium of Death wrote: In terms of ordering Knights in the UK is anybody else experience problems trying to use Dark Sphere's website? I can't seem to view anything beyond the first page.
Go to element games £70.95 posted or free postage over £80 plus a cash back loyalty scheme.
bu11etmagn3tt wrote: Conspiracy theory #2 - GW hates leaks. They give each person on the project a different size of the model. 6", 6.5", 7", 7.5", 8", or bigger than this/smaller than that... in order to zoom in on the "mole" at GW....... Plug the leak GW! Plug it!
Except that the erroneous measurement was in the official description on the official website and not a leak. Still.. finecast heads will roll!
I ordered 4 from my local store, debated getting 6 but I want to see if there is any benefit formation wise first. 4 is a min. that I wanted to go with my Titans. I was going to wait for the Chaos versions or conversion kits but I decided that I'll paint them as neutral as possible to make them usable by all my armies.
So there's one kit and a $40 codex that goes with it? No actual other kit releases for the 2nd week of March? What is going to actually be in the codex? There's two knight variants with optional heavy stubbers.
But then again, these supplements have been 99% fluff and one to three pages of rules, so it'd be par for the course if it's that kind of book. Remember; they don't make rules with no model, so there won't be a whole lot of choice in that book.
Well that's disappointing. Not even the Helbrute that we've seen pictures of from Visions.
If you want the full suite of products... it'll cost you 310$ for a single Knight. 170$ for the Knight, 50$ for the codex and 90$ for the Companion. I do hope this companion guide is quite optional.
bu11etmagn3tt wrote: Conspiracy theory #2 - GW hates leaks. They give each person on the project a different size of the model. 6", 6.5", 7", 7.5", 8", or bigger than this/smaller than that... in order to zoom in on the "mole" at GW....... Plug the leak GW! Plug it!
Except that the erroneous measurement was in the official description on the official website and not a leak. Still.. finecast heads will roll!
insaniak wrote: OK, so Codex, Ltd Ed Codex and 'Companion Guide'...
Anyone know what a 'Companion Guide' is...?
Lube?!
GW charges $60 for courteousy reach arounds...
You get a discount?! No fair.
OT For the sticker price of $140, I really wish they would've included more arm options. Or at least a different version of the chainsword.
I realize that FW or GW themselves will likely release different ones down the road, but it would be nice to have a better selection. And
just look at the extra FW turrets they've offered. They still sell. These will too.
personnaly won't buy any myself, has i can't bring myself to really like GW Mechs models( juste look at the size of the torso/carapace and now the size of the legs..., its a perfect "Don't skip legs day" meme candidate..)
Medium of Death wrote: In terms of ordering Knights in the UK is anybody else experience problems trying to use Dark Sphere's website? I can't seem to view anything beyond the first page.
The most recent IE update gave it a headache from what I saw
Medium of Death wrote: In terms of ordering Knights in the UK is anybody else experience problems trying to use Dark Sphere's website? I can't seem to view anything beyond the first page.
The most recent IE update gave it a headache from what I saw
As long as we don't wind up with Bretonians 40k I think them expanding the households will be great . I'm just worried we will see Damsel psykers, and trebuchet that launch fusion bombs or something rediculous.
Alpharius wrote: This HAS to be more than just an 'add-on ally army only' though, doesn't it?
Especially at those book prices!
Maybe there's options for Knight Household foot and vehicle troop support too?
Maybe even some AM stuff, if your Knight is so aligned?
I think it has to be. A book that expensive to say "Look! You can buy more Knights and use them as an army!" would be pretty sucky. They have to flesh it out with some sort of infantry and support options, otherwise it's going to be the worst army ever.
Theophony wrote: As long as we don't wind up with Bretonians 40k I think them expanding the households will be great . I'm just worried we will see Damsel psykers, and trebuchet that launch fusion bombs or something rediculous.
Well, they could always work within the "spirit" of a Bretonnian-esque translation. Trebuchets could equate to basilisks or somesuch, and it would be easy enough to add in the ubiquitous inquisitorial warband as troops. Everything could be painted up under the different houses they serve (resulting in a very similar appearance to the WHFB counterpart).
Personally, I would enjoy this idea. It seems difficult to make an entire army solely out of one model. At least adding in a couple supporting units would more justify an actual army, but then again the Inquisition codex doesn't merit much of a real army either, so perhaps the codex will just end up being ally-fodder.
Alpharius wrote: This HAS to be more than just an 'add-on ally army only' though, doesn't it?
Especially at those book prices!
Maybe there's options for Knight Household foot and vehicle troop support too?
Maybe even some AM stuff, if your Knight is so aligned?
I think it has to be. A book that expensive to say "Look! You can buy more Knights and use them as an army!" would be pretty sucky. They have to flesh it out with some sort of infantry and support options, otherwise it's going to be the worst army ever.
See, I'd agree with you on that. But then I think to the Inquisition codex and I'm not so sure. *However* Imperial Knights DO have their own tab on the website, so perhaps our hopes won't be dashed.
probably one of the security certificates has expired as the padlock symbol in the address bar has a warning triangle over it (chrome won't let you go further if you've got adequate security levels set)
I've dropped them an email to get it fixed
(IE now seems to work if you allow it to display unsecure content)
Alpharius wrote: This HAS to be more than just an 'add-on ally army only' though, doesn't it?
Especially at those book prices!
Maybe there's options for Knight Household foot and vehicle troop support too?
Maybe even some AM stuff, if your Knight is so aligned?
My guess is some type of crew for "ground support", a special charactor or two, wargear options, and maybe something like tech marines. The single model army does not make sense so there has to be some kind of hashing out as to what makes your HQ unique to the army as well as WL traits and such. This could be the Ad-Mech army people have been wanting for years
probably one of the security certificates has expired as the padlock symbol in the address bar has a warning triangle over it (chrome won't let you go further if you've got adequate security levels set)
I've dropped them an email to get it fixed
(IE now seems to work if you allow it to display unsecure content)
I had a similar problem with Amazon on my chromebook - try pressing shift ctrl & n
We really need to find out what this companion is. I mean two books for the rules for a single model is really taking the piss. Even a whole book for a single model is about as exploitative as GW has ever been.
Not really. Ultimately, the real Templars got curb-stomped hard by the Church under Pope Clement V (reigning from France), who set both Philip IV of France (bedecked in loads of Fleur de Lys) and the Inquisition on the Templars tail, purging them on (false?) charges of Sodomy, Heresy and more.
Nobody with even a half a history lesson would feel very comfortable fielding Inquisition and/or Sisters along with Templars anyway, unless you're specifically talking the reverse pot-shot at GW's history-puns.
Not really. Ultimately, the real Templars got curb-stomped hard by the Church under Pope Clement V (reigning from France), who set both Philip IV of France (bedecked in loads of Fleur de Lys) and the Inquisition on the Templars tail, purging them on (false?) charges of Sodomy, Heresy and more.
Nobody with even a half a history lesson would feel very comfortable fielding Inquisition and/or Sisters along with Templars anyway, unless you're specifically talking the reverse pot-shot at GW's history-puns.
I thought GW based their stuff off the Anglican church, not the Catholic church.
Breotan wrote: I thought GW based their stuff off the Anglican church, not the Catholic church.
Don't think the Angelican Church had much truck with Templars, nor is it known for its Inquisition or Fleur de Lys. At least not to my knowledge. I think they looked around far and wide. Sly Marbo ain't inspired by a British film either.
Actually, they are nothing to do with religion or knighthood at all, the Black Templars are in fact named after a very specific subset of lawyers and barristers, so called for there predilection of achieving victory in battle by burying their opponent under a massive amount of litigation and bureaucracy.
Breotan wrote: I thought GW based their stuff off the Anglican church, not the Catholic church.
Don't think the Angelican Church had much truck with Templars, nor is it known for its Inquisition or Fleur de Lys. At least not to my knowledge. I think they looked around far and wide. Sly Marbo ain't inspired by a British film either.
He did say he was using allies so that's par for the course.
I do hope that GW clarifies what is what in terms of the books/rules with the next weekly white dwarf. Leaving important info conspicuously absent from the big reveal issue does drum up interest (and likely sales) for the next one. I'm not in the market for an Imperial not-titan personally but I wouldn't mind facing one or two with my normal armies some day across the tabletop at least once. I haven't seen any local Dreamforge Leviathans yet either (although I did see one of the original resin ones during a huge apoc game a few years ago).
Breotan wrote: I thought GW based their stuff off the Anglican church, not the Catholic church.
Don't think the Angelican Church had much truck with Templars, nor is it known for its Inquisition or Fleur de Lys. At least not to my knowledge. I think they looked around far and wide. Sly Marbo ain't inspired by a British film either.
King Henry II (1154–1189) granted the Templars land across England,
I am sure no young fantasy/history/sci-fi nerd in the late 1980s (before Wikipedia) would've ever known the Templars without this historical thriller. Never mind all the boring stuff about slaughter, carnage, crusades, sodomy, heresy and apostasy happening elsewhere...
Alpharius wrote: This HAS to be more than just an 'add-on ally army only' though, doesn't it?
Especially at those book prices!
Maybe there's options for Knight Household foot and vehicle troop support too?
Maybe even some AM stuff, if your Knight is so aligned?
Sentinals of Terra HB supplement is up on the GW site at £30. I have no trouble at all believing that GW would release a £30 "codex" for one model with two weapon options, and that depresses me a bit; at this point GW have disappeared so far up their own backside they'll soon collapse into a microsingularity.
Nobody with even a half a history lesson would feel very comfortable fielding Inquisition and/or Sisters along with Templars anyway, unless you're specifically talking the reverse pot-shot at GW's history-puns.
If it was real history I would agree - but in terms of 40k history - the Templars and Sororitas are prefectly fine as confirmed by the recent SM Codex. The only time this has not been true was when they cocked up the Ally Matrix
back on topic - I am def getting at least one Kinght in Sororitas colours as a member of a Household beholden to the Sororitas for some reason....
We don't even need to go down the pastic ThunderHawk road
It was an army that was absurdly easy to deal with sporting those rules, especially in 3E. If you didn't have fun playing it's not because you had trouble killing it with that rule in there (particularly as glances could still kill tanks and vehicles couldn't get cover saves).
Alpharius I'll go ahead andstep up and apologize that 
.jpg)
