HisDivineShadow wrote: I have no idea why you linked a wiki page that has basically zero information. Corroborating your statement or otherwise.
My guess would be this part...
"The arms of House Mortimer are a purple Tyranid bioform on a field of yellow."
Goodness, I am reaching deep into my memory, I played 40k and epic since it all started. House Mortimer, the archfather got involved with a genestealer cult... there was fluff in titan rulebooks, 1st and 2nd tyranid edition codexes....
Regarding Mortimer & Genestealer cult, the fluff was in one of these mentioned books/mags -
It even included rules for a "Transport Coven Limousine." Later, in the first Codex Tyranids, these rules were incorporated as the "Genestealer Cult Army List" and included all of the characters in their previous form sans Limousine.
In the Codex for 3rd Edition, there were no rules provided for the Genestealer Cults. With the introduction of the Broodlord in 4th Edition, Genestealers could once again be fielded as their own army. Before the 4th edition introduced new sculpts for them, the 3rd edition Genestealers were the oldest models in use to date, being the same designs used in Rogue Trader and the Space Hulk game."
Those limousines were wicked.
Oh OT, anyways how quickly can we expect 3rd part conversion parts or a cheaper 2 legged vehicle that is not called a knight.
I've been looking kind of side-eyes at everybody angry about the "one unit codex" before we knew ANYTHING about it really, but if naftka's guy is right about this, I'm ready to chuck this into the pit with the unused Escalation books in it. The good news is, I guess, there's still no reason to go too apey, on account of you can still easily just not play with this disaster of a book if you don't want to. Based on this rumor though, there is no other way to describe this or sugar-coat it: this is a total disaster.
Couple years ago when iron man movie came out I thought "wow, a little conversion and I'll have a small war hound/ knight for my chaos army using the 6" tall iron monger", now I'll have official rules for him
Here he's painted up with iron warrior colors next to my crusader. He will be same height as the knight.
And I'll just field him using codex space marines(iron warriors) with knight allies.
Your saying one of your mates puts that much effort into a conversion and your not going to let him play it?
Glad you are not in my gaming group!
Also, those new rumors sound like absolute BS... advanced copy of the codex? the only people that have been getting things like that over the last 6 months are 40K radio.
I can now have an army of giant robots and fight against someone else with an army of giant robots!
This has got to be the greatest new idea in tabletop war games ever!
Alabaster.clown wrote: I can now have an army of giant robots and fight against someone else with an army of giant robots!
This has got to be the greatest new idea in tabletop war games ever!
You would have loved Adeptus Titanicus back when it was available...and that game in itself proves that this is not a "new idea"!
I'm presuming your post has a fair slab of sarcasm attached...
bodazoka wrote: Your saying one of your mates puts that much effort into a conversion and your not going to let him play it?
Glad you are not in my gaming group!.
I suspect that you would find quite a few gaming groups scattered around who would be reluctant to accept 'But I built it, and that was hard!' as a valid reason for ignoring the rules...
If that allies list isn't complete hogwash, I'm pretty ticked about CSM not being able to take them. I'd say "surely there will be a chaos version at some point", but I feel it more likely they're saying "well, they've got the Khornemower, so CSM are covered for SHVs for a goodly while".
No. No, no McNo. I don't do fething Khorne, I don't do Nurgle, I'd happily convert a Tzeentch or Slaanesh version my own self, but I don't care for Khorne or Nurgle, so no mower, thank you. Give me the ability to take a Knight from a house that went traitor, for heaven's sake!
Your saying one of your mates puts that much effort into a conversion and your not going to let him play it?
Glad you are not in my gaming group!
Also, those new rumors sound like absolute BS... advanced copy of the codex? the only people that have been getting things like that over the last 6 months are 40K radio.
"Glad you are not in my gaming group!"
See, that's the problem, even though I can rationalize that most of my regular opponents that make up my gaming group have no intention to play escalation/apoc, the pool is shrinking, people are moving on to other things and it's largely on account of recent developments. It's now a political nightmare to get a game in with new people and new groups and that problem is only further compounded with every week that sees a new release. I wish it was a simple dychotomy but there's so much crap in 40k now that every group has its own biases, there's no baseline anymore, no standard and it's destructive as hell.
Apocalypse was fine, it was there for the fluffy/fun/borderline personality crowd to enjoy, now apparently we all have to play your game or we're whiners or horrible people.
I feel as though this seemingly unrelated honest trailer for pacific rim says a lot about the state of 40k at the moment. Giant robots are cool but you can only ignore "the stupid" for so long.
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong...
2) Datasheets. There is a section in the codex, after organization chart, that covers Datasheets. None are mentioned but looks like these will be popping up in books...sorry everyone that don't consider them official, etc...
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll on the Knight Apparent/Knight Seneschal chart. 1 - Knight is -1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 5+ now. 2-5 Your an Imperial Knight. 6 - Knight is +1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 3+ now.
5) Concerning Warlord Traits: They range up and down from being useful to 'meh'. Examples: +1" to Run/Charge range. +1 to Building Damage Chart. My favorite: Warlord gains It Will Not Die!
6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades. They are not even listed on the ally chart.
7) The Companion Guide is amazingly beautiful for coffee table style books. Its a big book, lots of pretty pictures, etc. It does not contain rules but for collectors its a nice buy. Average guy might not buy it but dedicated collectors will want to order it. I recommend ordering it in a Games Workshop, ship to the store for safety and protection of the book.
Oh the amount of bs in this Codex is too damn high!!!
I have to roll on a table to make my knights WORSE?
That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
Is GW unwilling to write rules that might potentially be good or bad? That is all I see with warlord traits and this new d6 table.
"Some of these warlord traits might be OP in certain armies. Solution: make it random!"
"If we write in rules to let you take your knights as all hardened veterans that might prove to be OP! What if we don't get the points costs right? Make it random!"
They could have easily written in one paragraph saying that noob knights cost 40 points less, and leader boss knights cost 60 points more, for their respective points costs... but no, let's just make you roll for it every fething time?
What if I paint my knights up with heraldry that indicates they are veterans? They still have a 1/6 chance each game of being idiots?
These knight models are amazing but they dropped the ball so hard on the rules side of things that I don't even know what to think any more. Whoever determined the rules content direction of this Knights release has done the model designing side such a disservice it's ridiculous. They should be straight up fired.
ph34r wrote: I have to roll on a table to make my knights WORSE?
That is the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
Is GW unwilling to write rules that might potentially be good or bad? That is all I see with warlord traits and this new d6 table.
They could have easily written in one paragraph saying that noob knights cost 40 points less, and leader boss knights cost 60 points more, for their respective points costs... but no, let's just make you roll for it every fething time?
What if I paint my knights up with heraldry that indicates they are veterans? They still have a 1/6 chance each game of being idiots?
These knight models are amazing but they dropped the ball so hard on the rules side of things that I don't even know what to think any more. Whoever determined the rules content direction of this Knights release has done the model designing side such a disservice it's ridiculous. They should be straight up fired.
It is written as a choice, rather than a compulsion.
Agreed it is gakky unimaginative rules writing though.
And for a Codex with a single unit, having different types (stats and rules based on points costs, even if the weapons are the same) would have been easy.
But no, we get an expensive hard-cover book and then another expensive hard-cover book for all the background. I look forward to the "companion" books for future Codices. And then the inevitable Limited Edition companion books.
bodazoka wrote: Your saying one of your mates puts that much effort into a conversion and your not going to let him play it?
Glad you are not in my gaming group!.
I suspect that you would find quite a few gaming groups scattered around who would be reluctant to accept 'But I built it, and that was hard!' as a valid reason for ignoring the rules...
You are not giving someone enough credit "that was hard" doesn't reflect the time and effort people put into converting and painting these things.. Have you seen the ork looted tyranid models, looted bane blades? you are not right in the head (don't mean you specifically) if you wouldn't let your mate play something like that! There's a guy who converted all of his orc's to look like Tau models and play's them as a Tau army!
It's hardly ignoring the rules! It's a slight change to the FOC.. and even TO's are "ignoring" rules now to make the game more fun!!
Would you play against someone who built a 6' x 1" void shield generator and then placed their whole Tau gunline under it's protection?
This is on the same curve, just more towards the reasonable end. I have absolutely no issue with counts as models (I have many myself) but using units you shouldn't just because you chose to build them? Nah.
See, that's the problem, even though I can rationalize that most of my regular opponents that make up my gaming group have no intention to play escalation/apoc, the pool is shrinking, people are moving on to other things and it's largely on account of recent developments. It's now a political nightmare to get a game in with new people and new groups and that problem is only further compounded with every week that sees a new release. I wish it was a simple dychotomy but there's so much crap in 40k now that every group has its own biases, there's no baseline anymore, no standard and it's destructive as hell.
Apocalypse was fine, it was there for the fluffy/fun/borderline personality crowd to enjoy, now apparently we all have to play your game or we're whiners or horrible people.
That would be a sad thing to see, it is unfortunate that your group seems to be dwindling.
We have a loose set of un defined / talked about rules at our club. It basically boils down to just asking permission for things or game "styles" up front, no one get's upset if you FB "Hey someone wanna play a 2K escalation game". If no one does that week you play a "normal" game instead and it's fine. It is unfortunate your club could not embrace a system that allowed them to enjoy the hobby a bit more.
I'm not even excited for the model anymore, the whole concept with the codex just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Poor and sloppy rules choices all around with this.
See, that's the problem, even though I can rationalize that most of my regular opponents that make up my gaming group have no intention to play escalation/apoc, the pool is shrinking, people are moving on to other things and it's largely on account of recent developments. It's now a political nightmare to get a game in with new people and new groups and that problem is only further compounded with every week that sees a new release. I wish it was a simple dychotomy but there's so much crap in 40k now that every group has its own biases, there's no baseline anymore, no standard and it's destructive as hell.
Apocalypse was fine, it was there for the fluffy/fun/borderline personality crowd to enjoy, now apparently we all have to play your game or we're whiners or horrible people.
That would be a sad thing to see, it is unfortunate that your group seems to be dwindling.
We have a loose set of un defined / talked about rules at our club. It basically boils down to just asking permission for things or game "styles" up front, no one get's upset if you FB "Hey someone wanna play a 2K escalation game". If no one does that week you play a "normal" game instead and it's fine. It is unfortunate your club could not embrace a system that allowed them to enjoy the hobby a bit more.
Maybe you should be in our gaming group
Way to word it such that you poo-poo any other group's way of playing. Seriously, I guess we should all bow to your group's obviously superior methods.
bodazoka wrote: You are not giving someone enough credit "that was hard" doesn't reflect the time and effort people put into converting and painting these things..
Trust me, I know exactly how much time and effort people put into converting stuff...
you are not right in the head (don't mean you specifically) if you wouldn't let your mate play something like that!
See, the same could be said about the guy who spent all of that time converting something that they knew from the start wasn't going to be game-legal.
Personally, I might allow it in a friendly game at home if we had discussed it previously and agreed on appropriate rules for it... But a lot of people prefer to stick to the actual rules of the game, as nonsensical as that may be rapidly becomming...
There's a guy who converted all of his orc's to look like Tau models and play's them as a Tau army!
Which is an entirely different thing to running a unit in an army that isn't allowed to use that unit.
It's hardly ignoring the rules! It's a slight change to the FOC..
So a slight change to the rules isn't a change to the rules...?
and even TO's are "ignoring" rules now to make the game more fun!!
TOs have been doing that for as long as their have been TOs.
MWHistorian wrote: Wait....no Chaos knights? Why the ____ not? I'm going to throat punch the next GW employee I see.
Still an awesome model though.
I hope the next GW employee you see is a 500lb silverback gorilla with a GW redshirt and 'call me dave' on his nametag...
well, now we've got that out of the way, I would suggest there will likely be a chaos version or at least a 'chaos kit' along in good time, perhaps with rules, weapons and a shiny new codex all their own.
See, that's the problem, even though I can rationalize that most of my regular opponents that make up my gaming group have no intention to play escalation/apoc, the pool is shrinking, people are moving on to other things and it's largely on account of recent developments. It's now a political nightmare to get a game in with new people and new groups and that problem is only further compounded with every week that sees a new release. I wish it was a simple dychotomy but there's so much crap in 40k now that every group has its own biases, there's no baseline anymore, no standard and it's destructive as hell.
Apocalypse was fine, it was there for the fluffy/fun/borderline personality crowd to enjoy, now apparently we all have to play your game or we're whiners or horrible people.
That would be a sad thing to see, it is unfortunate that your group seems to be dwindling.
We have a loose set of un defined / talked about rules at our club. It basically boils down to just asking permission for things or game "styles" up front, no one get's upset if you FB "Hey someone wanna play a 2K escalation game". If no one does that week you play a "normal" game instead and it's fine. It is unfortunate your club could not embrace a system that allowed them to enjoy the hobby a bit more.
Maybe you should be in our gaming group
"It is unfortunate your club could not embrace a system that allowed them to enjoy the hobby a bit more."
They're choosing to not embrace the breakdown of a system actually. A breakdown that has lead them to enjoy the hobby less as a result.
I would just like to put forward the idea that "fun" is inherently subjective.
azreal13 wrote: Would you play against someone who built a 6' x 1" void shield generator and then placed their whole Tau gunline under it's protection?
This is on the same curve, just more towards the reasonable end. I have absolutely no issue with counts as models (I have many myself) but using units you shouldn't just because you chose to build them? Nah.
haha that's a bit extreme isn't it? little bit strawman? of course you wouldn't play that.. but the guy who bring's that get's a hand shake that game and a "congrats you win" before I place my models down and I go play someone else!
Please understand I don't mean bringing a "codex grey" painted model slapping it on the table next to your Tyranid's and going "lets play". But if someone converts that bad boy to look like a Magus is piloting it with a bunch of rippers crawling around it leading some units of purestrains then yes he is allowed to play it. And he get's some respect points from me for doing it!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shade1313 wrote: Way to word it such that you poo-poo any other group's way of playing. Seriously, I guess we should all bow to your group's obviously superior methods.
Was not intentional, I apologize if that was the way it is read
Whatever works for the group your in is the way to go!
It is written as a choice, rather than a compulsion.
Agreed it is gakky unimaginative rules writing though.
1) You don't know how its written, you only know how it was presented to you second hand. It might very well be optional, it might not.
2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'
Nope, sorry, doesn't matter how well it's converted, no. If you add a rule of "as long as it's converted well, play whatever the hell you want!", then everyone would just start converting everything to get around the rules, and the rules are whacky enough as they are.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: well, now we've got that out of the way, I would suggest there will likely be a chaos version or at least a 'chaos kit' along in good time, perhaps with rules, weapons and a shiny new codex all their own.
DJGietzen wrote: 2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'
Giving every model in your army a 1 in six chance of being worse than what you paid for is not 'keeping them interesting'. It's lunacy.
It's akin to removing veterans and scouts from the Marine codex, and rolling a die for each of your tactical squads at the start of each game to see what you actually wind up fielding. It's a stupid idea as a part of normal gameplay.
insaniak wrote: See, the same could be said about the guy who spent all of that time converting something that they knew from the start wasn't going to be game-legal.
Personally, I might allow it in a friendly game at home if we had discussed it previously and agreed on appropriate rules for it... But a lot of people prefer to stick to the actual rules of the game, as nonsensical as that may be rapidly becomming.
I would absolutely encourage someone to ask the group first before embarking on a modelling project that they might not be allowed to use. I understand a new group or tournament setting would be a different kettle of fish.
I am currently at the stage where I feel like "the rules of the game" are a close approximation (98.756%) to the way people should be playing and that adding or subtracting "small" changes to make the game more playable is something people should do because currently... they are totally nonsensical!!
The above allows me to think playing a knight in a chaos army would be 100% legit because honestly.. considering where everything else is at.. why not?
bodazoka wrote: Please understand I don't mean bringing a "codex grey" painted model slapping it on the table next to your Tyranid's and going "lets play". But if someone converts that bad boy to look like a Magus is piloting it with a bunch of rippers crawling around it leading some units of purestrains then yes he is allowed to play it. And he get's some respect points from me for doing it!
Yeah, but that's changing the rules even more. "I made a really cool conversion" isn't a justifiable reason to start changing the rules.
It is written as a choice, rather than a compulsion.
Agreed it is gakky unimaginative rules writing though.
1) You don't know how its written, you only know how it was presented to you second hand. It might very well be optional, it might not.
And that's exactly what I was referring to. Or was it not written as a choice in the post we were discussing?
2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'
Nope, it's stupid, as it is supposed to represent either novice or veteran level warriors, something even GW has traditionally made a choice almost all the time.
Nope, sorry, doesn't matter how well it's converted, no. If you add a rule of "as long as it's converted well, play whatever the hell you want!", then everyone would just start converting everything to get around the rules, and the rules are whacky enough as they are.
Sorry I don't mean everything is capable of being converted and played, specifically these knights I feel could (and maybe should) be used that way. I would like to see where they are at in 6 months, I don't believe GW would limit something this cool to purely imperial. It would make financial sense to have some sort of conversion kit for other races (specifically chaos) and you know how they like money!!
DJGietzen wrote: 2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'
I wouldn't call it a "decent" way, I'd call it a "piss poor" way. They're basically like different troops and you're rolling to see which one you get. They could have just made them unique troops, maybe even with different weapon options, different markings, different schemes, different point costs... kind of like they do in every other army.
It's basically like playing a Bretonnian army and you take a dozen "Knights" for a certain number of points and then roll to see if they are Errant, Realm, Questing or Grail instead of just picking Errant, Realm, Questing or Grail and paying the appropriate points for them.
azreal13 wrote: Would you play against someone who built a 6' x 1" void shield generator and then placed their whole Tau gunline under it's protection?
This is on the same curve, just more towards the reasonable end. I have absolutely no issue with counts as models (I have many myself) but using units you shouldn't just because you chose to build them? Nah.
haha that's a bit extreme isn't it? little bit strawman? of course you wouldn't play that.. but the guy who bring's that get's a hand shake that game and a "congrats you win" before I place my models down and I go play someone else!
Please understand I don't mean bringing a "codex grey" painted model slapping it on the table next to your Tyranid's and going "lets play". But if someone converts that bad boy to look like a Magus is piloting it with a bunch of rippers crawling around it leading some units of purestrains then yes he is allowed to play it. And he get's some respect points from me for doing it!
I'm aware of what you are referring to. I agree with Insaniak, organised in advance, in a game amongst friends, I'd probably go with it, but outside of that...
Actually, my example is not a strawman at all. My void shield example is technically legal, as nowhere are a void shield's dimensions specified, nor is there currently a model, so there is no basis in rules (but in reasonable behaviour, of course) to deny it. Using a unit as battle brothers with an army it isn't allowed to ally with/normally isn't BB with is an overt ignoring/breaking of the rules.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dereksatkinson wrote: Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..
The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.
I suspect that you would find quite a few gaming groups scattered around who would be reluctant to accept 'But I built it, and that was hard!' as a valid reason for ignoring the rules...
What fething rules? GWs "rules" are rapidly becoming irrelevant if everyone is having to "tune" the rules to make a balanced game. The ever increasing stupidity of newly released rules is balkanizing the 40K player base and hurting the game.
It's now a political nightmare to get a game in with new people and new groups and that problem is only further compounded with every week that sees a new release. I wish it was a simple dychotomy but there's so much crap in 40k now that every group has its own biases, there's no baseline anymore, no standard and it's destructive as hell.
azreal13 wrote: I'm aware of what you are referring to. I agree with Insaniak, organised in advance, in a game amongst friends, I'd probably go with it, but outside of that...
Actually, my example is not a strawman at all. My void shield example is technically legal, as nowhere are a void shield's dimensions specified, nor is there currently a model, so there is no basis in rules (but in reasonable behaviour, of course) to deny it. Using a unit as battle brothers with an army it isn't allowed to ally with/normally isn't BB with is an overt ignoring/breaking of the rules.
Well.. if we are being technical the model in your example does not have complete rules, so how are you even allowed to field it?
azreal13 wrote: I'm aware of what you are referring to. I agree with Insaniak, organised in advance, in a game amongst friends, I'd probably go with it, but outside of that...
Actually, my example is not a strawman at all. My void shield example is technically legal, as nowhere are a void shield's dimensions specified, nor is there currently a model, so there is no basis in rules (but in reasonable behaviour, of course) to deny it. Using a unit as battle brothers with an army it isn't allowed to ally with/normally isn't BB with is an overt ignoring/breaking of the rules.
Well.. if we are being technical the model in your example does not have complete rules, so how are you even allowed to field it?
Of course it does, it's in Stronghold Assault. It's just a stellar example of poor rules writing from GW. Again.
dereksatkinson wrote: Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..
The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.
And why not using the new models as count as with the StoD(TM) rules? If GW no longer cares about rules and doesn't sponsor any kind of organized gaming it seems logical that people with a gaming group would adapt some house rules as using count-as or their own gaming level (regular, escalation...) to their playing style.
I really wanted to get a knight. I really did. The kit looks fantastic, it's very reminiscent of the old epic models, well updated and gorgeous to boot.
But it seems that each new bit of information we get about it, in conjunction with glimpses at the future of 40k, and I just feel like the game is falling apart. US full retail to play one knight costs $181...I guess you could get more "bang for your buck" by running more knights, but it appears that the rules in the codex are basically just rules for ONE MODEL?! so it doesn't sound like you can really improve that cost.
Look, I love 40k fluff, I always have (it's probably been one of the driving factors keeping me in the game), but I like to purchase game-focused books with relatively equivalent amounts of rules and fluff. There cannot be that much rule content, so I'm essentially paying for background with the codex. But wait, it can't be that much fluff because what would the companion book be? (This would have been a perfect opportunity to provide a small rulebook very cheap...honestly, one model's rules aren't worth more than $10 are they?. And the fluff could have been put in the compendium)
I just can't bring myself to pay all that money for one (albeit very pretty) model. Though with escalation coming it sounds like I won't have much of a choice whether or not to play against bigger and bigger units...I feel genuinely sad that 40k is turning into this, I wish everyone who keeps playing it well but I feel like I'm paying more and more money to play an imaginary game of toy robots!
"pew pew! I got you! Nuh-uh, my robot has a special laser shield! Whatever, my robot has a special shield-melting ice cannon!"
dereksatkinson wrote: Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..
The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.
And why not using the new models as count as with the StoD(TM) rules? If GW no longer cares about rules and doesn't sponsor any kind of organized gaming it seems logical that people with a gaming group would adapt some house rules as using count-as or their own gaming level (regular, escalation...) to their playing style.
M.
Because not everyone is very good, or confident, in conversion work, and they'd like a model as cool as the IK for Chaos that they can just glue together and slap paint on, but won't look like a mess.
Which, I guess, given GWs track record of "just add spikes" might be a forlorn hope, even with an official model.
I don't see how the hell one can forge a narrative when they have to roll on a random table to determine something's traits. Honestly, I always found it dumb how psychic powers and warlord traits were random in general. Oh, so today after forging my narrative, Sergent Togard has It Will Not Die! The next day, however, he instead commands his troops and inspires them to be fearless instead! And the next battle, he now makes enemies have fear! Despite how it's the same Sergent Togard!
How the gak does that make any narrative sense whatsoever?
These knight random tables are the same way. They basically took a stupid system and made it apply to even more things.
Leth wrote: I dunno, when I roll for stats it kind creates the character in D&D.
If I get an 8 for int, or a 6 for strength, it really needs to be written into the characters backstory.
Or if he is almost 10s cross the board, he is the everyman hero.
For the most part very very few play DnD like that anymore :p Not since 3rd edition really when most use alternate rolling methods because people just remade their characters instead of forging a narrative playing a completely useless excuse for a character..
Also, your analogy is false because you don't roll your characters stats EVERY adventure like you do with warlord and psychic powers.
My group has chosen warlord traits from the get go, the only time I have to roll randomly is tournaments and everytime I do it's a reminder of just how terrible the random mechanic really is. I'm not really surprised to see the same jervis knows best approach with the knights, he's likely the only one left so no one to talk him out of it.
dereksatkinson wrote: Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..
The fear is the incredibly derpy Skull Train Of Doom is the equivalent, and I doubt you'll find many who'd argue that the IK isn't a much cooler model.
And why not using the new models as count as with the StoD(TM) rules? If GW no longer cares about rules and doesn't sponsor any kind of organized gaming it seems logical that people with a gaming group would adapt some house rules as using count-as or their own gaming level (regular, escalation...) to their playing style.
M.
Because not everyone is very good, or confident, in conversion work, and they'd like a model as cool as the IK for Chaos that they can just glue together and slap paint on, but won't look like a mess.
Which, I guess, given GWs track record of "just add spikes" might be a forlorn hope, even with an official model.
That's not what I said. I'm proposing that given the current "forge the narrative" theme GW seems to like so much if you are playing with a regular group of equal minded people it might be very possible to reach a compromise to use the new knights as count-as for Khornemowers. I will agree that it's not posible for every army but surely people can find a place in most codexes for a Knight baing used as a count-as.
dereksatkinson wrote: Guys.. look at the epid equivalents.. it's obvious that chaos is going to get their own version of these kinds of models..
It is no such thing.
If THAT is "obvious", then it's also obvious that they're going to alter the WraithKnight soon, to make it a Gargantuan Creature, as it's acknowledged to be the updated version of the old Epic Eldar Knights.
Far more likely, IMHO, is that they'll fob off a Chaos version to FW at some unknown point in the future, and consider CSM players to already be good to go, since there's that Khornemower available to us.
Accolade wrote: US full retail to play one knight costs $181...
How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).
DJGietzen wrote: 2) Its a 1 in 6 chance the model gets worse. An equal chance the model gets better. 2/3 of the time rolling on the chart would do nothing. Seems like a fair trade to me, and a decent way to keep the unit interesting with out a bunch of 'upgrades'
Giving every model in your army a 1 in six chance of being worse than what you paid for is not 'keeping them interesting'. It's lunacy.
It's akin to removing veterans and scouts from the Marine codex, and rolling a die for each of your tactical squads at the start of each game to see what you actually wind up fielding. It's a stupid idea as a part of normal gameplay.
Would you prefer a rule that for every knight titan in your force you can roll a d6, on a 1 nothing happens, on a 2-5 they get +1 BS and WS and better ion shields and on a 6 they get +2 BS and WS and the best ion shields?
Its the same mechanic used in the grey knight dex with the space monkeys. As we've heard it described its a lot less nuanced but its still the same thing and no one complained then that I can recall.
Accolade wrote: US full retail to play one knight costs $181...
How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).
The white dwarf rules seem incomplete. Depending on how incomplete you may need the codex after all.
Accolade wrote: US full retail to play one knight costs $181...
How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).
The white dwarf rules seem incomplete. Depending on how incomplete you may need the codex after all.
Well, to be fair, I am framing my argument from the PoV of allies and not actually a main detachment. Given the "play one knight" statement I quoted, I assumed Accolade was going along the same lines.
MWHistorian wrote: Wait....no Chaos knights? Why the ____ not? I'm going to throat punch the next GW employee I see.
Still an awesome model though.
I hope the next GW employee you see is a 500lb silverback gorilla with a GW redshirt and 'call me dave' on his nametag...
well, now we've got that out of the way, I would suggest there will likely be a chaos version or at least a 'chaos kit' along in good time, perhaps with rules, weapons and a shiny new codex all their own.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Chaos marines haven't been the darker reflection of the imperial brothers for a very long time, and in 6th edition that divide has grown by leaps and bounds. To complicate things, while FW makes a chaos reaver and warhound titans, there are no rules for those models in any 6th edition 40k book put out by the GW design team. I'd never stop a friend from using one in an apocalypse game, but they simply are supported in proper 40k (i.e what the GW design team has published as 40k or a 40k expansion/codex)
Accolade wrote: US full retail to play one knight costs $181...
How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).
The white dwarf rules seem incomplete. Depending on how incomplete you may need the codex after all.
Well, to be fair, I am framing my argument from the PoV of allies and not actually a main detachment. Given the "play one knight" statement I quoted, I assumed Accolade was going along the same lines.
OK, in that POV is your knight titan scoring? Is it a battle brother to your primary detachment? How about any of the other questions that might pop up becouse the codex says something the WD failed to mention and we just did'nt or could'nt think of it yet. You can't say the WD article is "enough" or not until the codex is published and we can KNOW whats inside it.
Accolade wrote: US full retail to play one knight costs $181...
How do you even get at this number? You got the rules in the WD so you don't really need much else, so that's about $145 plus tax if you go retail. The only time you need the codex is if you want the background or if you need something not in the WD (no idea what that would be until I see the codex).
The white dwarf rules seem incomplete. Depending on how incomplete you may need the codex after all.
Well, to be fair, I am framing my argument from the PoV of allies and not actually a main detachment. Given the "play one knight" statement I quoted, I assumed Accolade was going along the same lines.
OK, in that POV is your knight titan scoring? Is it a battle brother to your primary detachment?
TiamatRoar wrote: How the gak does that make any narrative sense whatsoever?
Because you're not rolling randomly, you're rolling cinematically!!!
bodazoka wrote: One step closer to a Mechanicum army.. it will happen!!
See this I can get behind, but I'll leave it to a lavish Forge World production that contains a full Mechanicum list rather than a expensive hard-back Codex for a single model.
DJGietzen wrote: Would you prefer a rule that for every knight titan in your force you can roll a d6, on a 1 nothing happens, on a 2-5 they get +1 BS and WS and better ion shields and on a 6 they get +2 BS and WS and the best ion shields?
No. I would prefer a codex that lets you choose which units you are taking, and which upgrades you are going on put on them.
In a game that is supposedly (and that's a big 'supposedly' in this case, but that doesn't change the basic principle) pitting two equal forces against each other, any rule that randomly changes the abilities of a unit is bad, unless each of the random possibilities is equally useful and/or limiting.
Randomly making a unit weaker or stronger is not good games design.
Its the same mechanic used in the grey knight dex with the space monkeys. As we've heard it described its a lot less nuanced but its still the same thing and no one complained then that I can recall.
Plenty of people complained about the Jokaero.
Every time GW includes an option in a codex that has random results (with the possible exception of anything to do with Orks) people complain about it. Because uneven randomness is bad.
DJGietzen wrote: Would you prefer a rule that for every knight titan in your force you can roll a d6, on a 1 nothing happens, on a 2-5 they get +1 BS and WS and better ion shields and on a 6 they get +2 BS and WS and the best ion shields?
Of course not. What we'd want is properly crafted rules, where the capabilities of a unit is represented via its points costs. If there are lesser ranked Knights, then have them as options for a lower points cost. If there are super hardcore elite Knights then, again, list them as a separate unit with an increased points cost. That's what balance is all about - creating a rule-set that rewards options and variety via units that have points costs scaled to their approximate abilities and rarity.
insaniak wrote: In a game that is supposedly ... pitting to equal forces against each other, any rule that randomly changes the abilities of a unit is bad, unless each of the random possibilities is equally useful and/or limiting.
Exactly.
Why do people think that Possessed are so hated? They keep giving them random cinematic tables to roll on rather than allowing people to simply pay for the upgrades they want. Of course points aren't always the great leveller, and you cannot achieve perfect balance - those are givens - but increasing the amount of random rolls is not the answer. They take the game backwards.
Still liking the models, and it's cool seeing different colour schemes on them... but it strikes me that once upon a time, in a picture like that at least one of those 4 models would have been converted in some way. .
Given the mercenary nature of the Freeblades, they woudl have been the perfect canvas for going wild with different detailing... and after all of the variants shown so far, the stock 'standing there' pose is starting to get a little old.
It's not surprising by this point, given the shift in focus in the latest batch of codexes to showing stock models almost exclusively. But for someone who remembers the creativity that used to come out of the studio, it's disappointing.
Still liking the models, and it's cool seeing different colour schemes on them... but it strikes me that once upon a time, in a picture like that at least one of those 4 models would have been converted in some way. .
Given the mercenary nature of the Freeblades, they woudl have been the perfect canvas for going wild with different detailing... and after all of the variants shown so far, the stock 'standing there' pose is starting to get a little old.
It's not surprising by this point, given the shift in focus in the latest batch of codexes to showing stock models almost exclusively. But for someone who remembers the creativity that used to come out of the studio, it's disappointing.
Using the C word around Jervis Johnson is a bit like exposing a vampire to sunlight.
I agree there has been a distinct lack of conversions in recent codex's, I'm looking at the old catachan codex right now, a lot of creativity on display. The poses are pretty static on the knights but I think that's a good thing from a gaming perspective, it's easy to forget they're vehicles not mc's.
Accolade wrote: I really wanted to get a knight. I really did. The kit looks fantastic, it's very reminiscent of the old epic models, well updated and gorgeous to boot.
But it seems that each new bit of information we get about it, in conjunction with glimpses at the future of 40k, and I just feel like the game is falling apart. US full retail to play one knight costs $181...I guess you could get more "bang for your buck" by running more knights, but it appears that the rules in the codex are basically just rules for ONE MODEL?! so it doesn't sound like you can really improve that cost.
Wait...what... MSRP is $181 ?!?!....... You know that that's over $60.00 per sprue right. Oh my...
Accolade wrote: I really wanted to get a knight. I really did. The kit looks fantastic, it's very reminiscent of the old epic models, well updated and gorgeous to boot.
But it seems that each new bit of information we get about it, in conjunction with glimpses at the future of 40k, and I just feel like the game is falling apart. US full retail to play one knight costs $181...I guess you could get more "bang for your buck" by running more knights, but it appears that the rules in the codex are basically just rules for ONE MODEL?! so it doesn't sound like you can really improve that cost.
Wait...what... MSRP is $181 ?!?!....... You know that that's over $60.00 per sprue right. Oh my...
DJGietzen wrote: Would you prefer a rule that for every knight titan in your force you can roll a d6, on a 1 nothing happens, on a 2-5 they get +1 BS and WS and better ion shields and on a 6 they get +2 BS and WS and the best ion shields?
Of course not. What we'd want is properly crafted rules, where the capabilities of a unit is represented via its points costs. If there are lesser ranked Knights, then have them as options for a lower points cost. If there are super hardcore elite Knights then, again, list them as a separate unit with an increased points cost. That's what balance is all about - creating a rule-set that rewards options and variety via units that have points costs scaled to their approximate abilities and rarity.
Not rolling on a chart.
Maybe the game designers think that if they make everything perfectly random, it will in turn be perfectly balanced.
DJGietzen wrote: Would you prefer a rule that for every knight titan in your force you can roll a d6, on a 1 nothing happens, on a 2-5 they get +1 BS and WS and better ion shields and on a 6 they get +2 BS and WS and the best ion shields?
Of course not. What we'd want is properly crafted rules, where the capabilities of a unit is represented via its points costs. If there are lesser ranked Knights, then have them as options for a lower points cost. If there are super hardcore elite Knights then, again, list them as a separate unit with an increased points cost. That's what balance is all about - creating a rule-set that rewards options and variety via units that have points costs scaled to their approximate abilities and rarity.
Not rolling on a chart.
Maybe the game designers think that if they make everything perfectly random, it will in turn be perfectly balanced.
That makes no sense and not just from a logical perspective but a grammatical one as well.
Meh! the pricing of GW stuff is just so Kirby can line his CEO pockets before he bails on them and leave them to fix and clean for some other poor schmuck
NoggintheNog wrote: Well, I'm planning on buying one as a painting project, and all along didn't think it was likely to see a gaming table at any point.
Now, I'm positive it won't. Still going to enjoy painting it though.
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
Am I missing something here? Under 'battle brothers' the rumour states 'everyone else'.
Doesn't that mean every army can take them?
If it does, seems odd that Grey Knights are just AoC.
Everyone else seems to be ranting that CSM can't take them & am now very confused.
Suppose the good news is that Sisters (or whatever they're called now) can take them.
(Also - 1st use of the 'bold' function - so excited!!)
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong...
2) Datasheets. There is a section in the codex, after organization chart, that covers Datasheets. None are mentioned but looks like these will be popping up in books...sorry everyone that don't consider them official, etc...
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll on the Knight Apparent/Knight Seneschal chart. 1 - Knight is -1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 5+ now. 2-5 Your an Imperial Knight. 6 - Knight is +1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 3+ now.
5) Concerning Warlord Traits: They range up and down from being useful to 'meh'. Examples: +1" to Run/Charge range. +1 to Building Damage Chart. My favorite: Warlord gains It Will Not Die!
6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades. They are not even listed on the ally chart.
7) The Companion Guide is amazingly beautiful for coffee table style books. Its a big book, lots of pretty pictures, etc. It does not contain rules but for collectors its a nice buy. Average guy might not buy it but dedicated collectors will want to order it. I recommend ordering it in a Games Workshop, ship to the store for safety and protection of the book.
Few things I would really love to know if anyone can help! (thanks in advance)
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else - does this actually mention Sisters and the Inquisition codex's by name
4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll Is that a may/can or must and so can be ignored if you choose........?
Yeah, that is why I am considering not purchasing. Its way over priced. This thing while having an awesome aesthetic, is going to look puny for $140. I know I won't purchase the codex for $41. That's asinine considering how much rules content it has. It may take 3 or 4 pages of the book. However, I'm sure it will fit on one page neatly, with pictures.
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong...
2) Datasheets. There is a section in the codex, after organization chart, that covers Datasheets. None are mentioned but looks like these will be popping up in books...sorry everyone that don't consider them official, etc...
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll on the Knight Apparent/Knight Seneschal chart. 1 - Knight is -1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 5+ now. 2-5 Your an Imperial Knight. 6 - Knight is +1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 3+ now.
5) Concerning Warlord Traits: They range up and down from being useful to 'meh'. Examples: +1" to Run/Charge range. +1 to Building Damage Chart. My favorite: Warlord gains It Will Not Die!
6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades. They are not even listed on the ally chart.
7) The Companion Guide is amazingly beautiful for coffee table style books. Its a big book, lots of pretty pictures, etc. It does not contain rules but for collectors its a nice buy. Average guy might not buy it but dedicated collectors will want to order it. I recommend ordering it in a Games Workshop, ship to the store for safety and protection of the book.
Few things I would really love to know if anyone can help! (thanks in advance)
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else - does this actually mention Sisters and the Inquisition codex's by name
4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll Is that a may/can or must and so can be ignored if you choose........?
Don't count on C:=I= being mentioned. The escalation book touted a super heavy for every faction would be printed with its pages. The Inquisition and sisters were both omitted from that book as I expect they will be moving forward.
Its the same with forthcoming Legion of the Damned as well....................I guess the other supplementary Codexes count as their parent codexes for this............as LofthD might for Space Marines
Well, that random table sounds massively stupid, I hope it is completely optional. I didn't expected much from this codex, but if these rumours are true, it still manages to be a disappointment. At least I hoped that there would be something special for the Baron, (besides warlord traits) but apparently not. It is annoying if there is a veteran version of the Knights, but your Warlord cannot be one.
The thing I keep musing on, is Kroothawks excellent and somewhat "Lampooning post" on the Armies in the next tournament.... It's funny because it's basically true, 6th Edition Allies has absolutely killed this edition, I know I haven't played much 6th, but I've seen plenty of games at my local club and I've see some ridiculous non-40k things in there highlights include.
Ultramarines with a Lord of Skulls
Eldar Wraith knight allied with a Riptide on a Skypad Landing dock thing with a Bastion etc etc.
Blood Angels with Necrons
I'm all for variation but to my mind, this is just fething ridiculous and it just annoys the hell out of me. GW has made the Rules a vehicle to shift models, not a vehicle to a fun, balanced and engaging game full of variety. Freeblades is just another example of this "Shift models and bollox to the 40k universe".You know a game system is broken, when you have a million choices but the same 10 armies are pretty much seen on rotation. The constant "Pay to Win" mentality means rules are constantly being added to and never achieve a degree of balance, basically if you have the latest model and codex you have a 20% better chance of winning. That in itself is balls.
Freeblades are just a excuse for this. As I see it 4 factions should have these.
1. Imperial guard (I'm throwing Ad Mech, sisters etc in with these)
2. Traitor Guard (Cultists)
3. Space Marines
4. Chaos Marines
Why other factions get these....We may as well say That Orks can have Landraiders and Rhino's.
The universe has become so muddy and sullied, and retconned to hell you can prove just about anything is fluffy with a reference, just because it's written down doesn't mean it isn't a load of Balls. The last decade has spawned a awful lot of crap fluff.
You guys do know the rumor has the random table as a choice right? at which point it is not randomness or game balance design but a calculated risk on the part of the player.
mwnciboo wrote: The universe has become so muddy and sullied, and retconned to hell you can prove just about anything is fluffy with a reference, just because it's written down doesn't mean it isn't a load of Balls. The last decade has spawned a awful lot of crap fluff.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter
In all seriousness I agree whole heartedly. Allies has fundamentally amplified untold levels of stupidity when it comes to what you see on the board.
Leth wrote: You guys do know the rumor has the random table as a choice right? at which point it is not randomness or game balance design but a calculated risk on the part of the player.
Here I was thinking a few weapon or wargear options would be reasonable to expect in a codex containing the rules for one model.
bodazoka wrote: Your saying one of your mates puts that much effort into a conversion and your not going to let him play it?
Glad you are not in my gaming group!.
I suspect that you would find quite a few gaming groups scattered around who would be reluctant to accept 'But I built it, and that was hard!' as a valid reason for ignoring the rules...
I know, there are a lot of pedantic, boring people in the world aren't there?
Seriously though, if "the rules" are your focus, why on earth would you be playing 40K?
Apocalypse was fine, it was there for the fluffy/fun/borderline personality crowd to enjoy, now apparently we all have to play your game or we're whiners or horrible people.
You do not get to stand there and label an entire section of the community as having mental health problems and then whinge like a wee girl that's scraped her knee that the nasty wasty fluff gamers are bullywing oo!
bodazoka wrote: Please understand I don't mean bringing a "codex grey" painted model slapping it on the table next to your Tyranid's and going "lets play". But if someone converts that bad boy to look like a Magus is piloting it with a bunch of rippers crawling around it leading some units of purestrains then yes he is allowed to play it. And he get's some respect points from me for doing it!
Yeah, but that's changing the rules even more. "I made a really cool conversion" isn't a justifiable reason to start changing the rules.
Out of interest, why not? It's sufficient justification for "counts-as", it's sufficient justification for moving away from strict and literal WYSIWYG, so why not in the case of the example given? People "change the rules" all the time, for any number of reasons, so why draw the line here and not there, unless in the back of your(plural) minds you(plural) know full well that rubbishing a lot of effort one of your(plural) mates has put into something is a move and you(plural) want to justify that to yourselves and everyone else. "Oh I'm not treating a buddy like crap, I'm just following the rules innit guv, them's the breaks, more than my job's worth etc etc".
EDIT:
Crablezworth wrote: My group has chosen warlord traits from the get go, the only time I have to roll randomly is tournaments and everytime I do it's a reminder of just how terrible the random mechanic really is.
But ERMAHGERD that's changing the rules!
So just to clarify:
Disliking random mechanics = changing the rules is cool beans.
Rewarding the substantial effort of your friend = no dice bub, the Word is the Law, praise Geedub.
Yodhrin wrote: People "change the rules" all the time, for any number of reasons, so why draw the line here and not there,...
Because people draw that line in different places, for different reasons.
You may not see any difference between 'We're agreeing to change this rule because we don't like it' and 'I want to use a model that isn't allowed by my codex because I wasn't paying any attention to the rules when I built it'... but other players do.
And when you're in less informal situations with people you don't know (as a lot of people here tend to be, playing pick up games at stores rather than games in a living room with friends), going "Oh hey, I'm playing 'Nids with this awesome Knight conversion" isn't going to go down well.
I'm sorry, but saying "the game has rules" isn't a cop-out. It's the truth. The game has rules. To play the game you follow those rules. Without those rules you might as well be playing with plastic army men, going "pew pew" as you fight, and then arguing over who shot who first.
bodazoka wrote: Your saying one of your mates puts that much effort into a conversion and your not going to let him play it?
Glad you are not in my gaming group!.
I suspect that you would find quite a few gaming groups scattered around who would be reluctant to accept 'But I built it, and that was hard!' as a valid reason for ignoring the rules...
I know, there are a lot of pedantic, boring people in the world aren't there?
Seriously though, if "the rules" are your focus, why on earth would you be playing 40K?
Apocalypse was fine, it was there for the fluffy/fun/borderline personality crowd to enjoy, now apparently we all have to play your game or we're whiners or horrible people.
You do not get to stand there and label an entire section of the community as having mental health problems and then whinge like a wee girl that's scraped her knee that the nasty wasty fluff gamers are bullywing oo!
bodazoka wrote: Please understand I don't mean bringing a "codex grey" painted model slapping it on the table next to your Tyranid's and going "lets play". But if someone converts that bad boy to look like a Magus is piloting it with a bunch of rippers crawling around it leading some units of purestrains then yes he is allowed to play it. And he get's some respect points from me for doing it!
Yeah, but that's changing the rules even more. "I made a really cool conversion" isn't a justifiable reason to start changing the rules.
Out of interest, why not? It's sufficient justification for "counts-as", it's sufficient justification for moving away from strict and literal WYSIWYG, so why not in the case of the example given? People "change the rules" all the time, for any number of reasons, so why draw the line here and not there, unless in the back of your(plural) minds you(plural) know full well that rubbishing a lot of effort one of your(plural) mates has put into something is a move and you(plural) want to justify that to yourselves and everyone else. "Oh I'm not treating a buddy like crap, I'm just following the rules innit guv, them's the breaks, more than my job's worth etc etc".
EDIT:
Crablezworth wrote: My group has chosen warlord traits from the get go, the only time I have to roll randomly is tournaments and everytime I do it's a reminder of just how terrible the random mechanic really is.
But ERMAHGERD that's changing the rules!
So just to clarify:
Disliking random mechanics = changing the rules is cool beans.
Rewarding the substantial effort of your friend = no dice bub, the Word is the Law, praise Geedub.
Got it.
I made a distinction between fluffy, fun and those with borderline personality disorders with the all importan " / ", all sorts enjoy apocalypse it seems. I appreciate you highlighting attributes of the latter. My issue isn't with fluff gamers, my issue is with GW. But thankyou for exhibiting what a nasty fluff gamer might look like with how you conduct yourself. Fluff gamers are generally bullying eachother from what it seems.
Alpharius wrote: Forgeworld really is going to be our only hope for a 'real' and/or 'true' Army with Knights in it.
Then we're faced with the hilarious position where people are ok with 360 point 6 HP Strength D-toting scoring super-heavy walkers, but cry "needs permission/FW is cheese" when you want to use an alternate weapon made by FW.
Alpharius wrote: Forgeworld really is going to be our only hope for a 'real' and/or 'true' Army with Knights in it.
Then we're faced with the hilarious position where people are ok with 360 point 6 HP Strength D-toting scoring super-heavy walkers, but cry "needs permission/FW is cheese" when you want to use an alternate weapon made by FW.
Meh, I don't see much problem with it. Bringing more imbalance into the game doesn't fix it. Adding more broken stuff doesn't suddenly allow me to magically field my dark eldar wych army. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Its like saying "there's too much crazy in this asylum. Lets bring more insane people in here. That'll make the place more sane!"
So GW wants me to shell out $181 to field the first one and an additional $140 for each additional Knight I want to field? In addition, CSM can't field them, even though by fluff, IG and the Titan Legions are second to demons as the most allied force (traitor guard). Once I field the model, I may have to roll on a random table to see if I am going to waste or gain points based on a single die roll, which may result in my opponent just concede if I roll a 6.
Goresaw wrote: Meh, I don't see much problem with it. Bringing more imbalance into the game doesn't fix it. Adding more broken stuff doesn't suddenly allow me to magically field my dark eldar wych army. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Its like saying "there's too much crazy in this asylum. Lets bring more insane people in here. That'll make the place more sane!"
That wasn't really what I was getting at. I was more lampooning the existing crowd that doesn't want FW units involved in "regular" 40K because of imbalance, yet seem to be totally fine with 40k's inherent Codex-based imbalances. The presence of Knights simply amplifies just how silly this point of view is, because now we have a super-duper super-heavy - Codex legal, can ally with half a dozen armies, scores and so on - yet these people baulk at the idea of an Autocannon Chimera Turret, or a Krieg Quad-Cannon.
"Sets up barricade in case of people shouting hate."
I like the allies chart, i think it gives you more ability to, well, do more with the game. In relation to the allies for the IMPERIAL knights and it's allies, they all make sense in a way. I mean they are, and i repeat, IMPERIAL knights. Not Chaos knights, why would IMPERIAL knights, work with chaos? Necrons would have no need for a silly man-made machine and why would demons or orks want something like that. Orks have stompas! GK are AoC as the GK would like them, but they already have dreadknights, and eldar have titans of their own. The man SM armies don't have HUGE walkers. Yes, i know there are dreadnaughts, and penitent engines, etc but there is nothing like a knight for them. I realise that the DE don't have a big MC or walker, so that's prob why they are desperate allies, and for Nids. Hmm, let me think, do nids need a big walker that can destroy things, when a 'fex or something else will do? Yeah, the allies system isn't perfect, but it is fun to use, and like Columbo, one more thing, yes GW something can do things right, and others wrong, but were you really expecting other models in a book about IMPERIAL KNIGHTS. It's like expecting Dark Angels in a Space Wolves book. GW are like a well-known company with a famous tag-line: Does what it says on the tin.
Goresaw wrote: Meh, I don't see much problem with it. Bringing more imbalance into the game doesn't fix it. Adding more broken stuff doesn't suddenly allow me to magically field my dark eldar wych army. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Its like saying "there's too much crazy in this asylum. Lets bring more insane people in here. That'll make the place more sane!"
That wasn't really what I was getting at. I was more lampooning the existing crowd that doesn't want FW units involved in "regular" 40K because of imbalance, yet seem to be totally fine with 40k's inherent Codex-based imbalances. The presence of Knights simply amplifies just how silly this point of view is, because now we have a super-duper super-heavy - Codex legal, can ally with half a dozen armies, scores and so on - yet these people baulk at the idea of an Autocannon Chimera Turret, or a Krieg Quad-Cannon.
Yeah, I know. Rationally, no one has any problem with the underpowered, overcosted FW stuff. Its just the thud-guns, punisher vultures, etc... etc... that people has a problem with. Although, last time I checked, no 'competitive' gamer (and I hate to use the term like some sort of stigma) fields autocannon chimeras.
Also in regards to no chaos knights. Its easy to see why. Four months down the line when chaos players have already bought and converted their own knights, GW will release a CHAOS knight kit for $160 (its got a sprue with SPIKES ON IT). Then they will release a Chaos knight codex for $42, another CHAOS transfer sheet for $20.00 and a limited edition CHAOS art book for knights for $110.00.
Barfolomew wrote: So GW wants me to shell out $181 to field the first one and an additional $140 for each additional Knight I want to field? In addition, CSM can't field them, even though by fluff, IG and the Titan Legions are second to demons as the most allied force (traitor guard). Once I field the model, I may have to roll on a random table to see if I am going to waste or gain points based on a single die roll, which may result in my opponent just concede if I roll a 6.
W ... T ... F?
Only if you have it as a primary detachment, aka, Pure Knight Army.
..Which is something people have been complaining about anyways. I dunno anymore, reading news is depressing me lately.
I like the allies chart, i think it gives you more ability to, well, do more with the game. In relation to the allies for the IMPERIAL knights and it's allies, they all make sense in a way. I mean they are, and i repeat, IMPERIAL knights. Not Chaos knights, why would IMPERIAL knights, work with chaos?
I'll bite for the CSM case.
First, CSM are Allies of Convenience in the BRB with IG, so the precedent is set that CSM and IG call ally. The Knight is part of the Titan Legions and IMO are basically the same as IG from a "can be corrupted" stand point.
From a fluff stand point, when the CSM defected, a large number of IG and several Titan Legions also defected with them. I'd be willing to bet that some "imperial" knights were part of that defection. Even if they weren't the CSM fluff is built such that people are continually "falling" to Chaos, especially the weaker minded, such as Titan pilots, IG and even the mighty SMs. It's not that the imperial unit is still loyal to the Emperor and fighting with Chaos for convenience, it's that they are corrupted and fallen to Chaos and thus are supporting the CSM in battle.
That wasn't really what I was getting at. I was more lampooning the existing crowd that doesn't want FW units involved in "regular" 40K because of imbalance, yet seem to be totally fine with 40k's inherent Codex-based imbalances.
Always building strawmen, are we
People might (on occasion) opt out of Forge World, but not because it is (any more or less) imbalanced, but because it is Forge World. There is a separation of brands, and some people like it that way. That's all.
Goresaw wrote: Meh, I don't see much problem with it. Bringing more imbalance into the game doesn't fix it. Adding more broken stuff doesn't suddenly allow me to magically field my dark eldar wych army. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Its like saying "there's too much crazy in this asylum. Lets bring more insane people in here. That'll make the place more sane!"
That wasn't really what I was getting at. I was more lampooning the existing crowd that doesn't want FW units involved in "regular" 40K because of imbalance, yet seem to be totally fine with 40k's inherent Codex-based imbalances. The presence of Knights simply amplifies just how silly this point of view is, because now we have a super-duper super-heavy - Codex legal, can ally with half a dozen armies, scores and so on - yet these people baulk at the idea of an Autocannon Chimera Turret, or a Krieg Quad-Cannon.
Yeah, I know. Rationally, no one has any problem with the underpowered, overcosted FW stuff. Its just the thud-guns, punisher vultures, etc... etc... that people has a problem with. Although, last time I checked, no 'competitive' gamer (and I hate to use the term like some sort of stigma) fields autocannon chimeras.
What in the world is the problem with the Punisher Vulture?
It's a Punisher Gatling Cannon. It uses up both hardpoint slots meaning you're just using Punisher Gatling Cannons and the nose mounted Heavy Bolter for the Vulture.
I had hope for this Codex. I kept telling everyone "maybe they will give us houses and let us use IG models". Now I just feel like I have battered spouse syndrome and I keep on trying to convince people that my abusive spouse has redeeming qualities...
d-usa wrote: I had hope for this Codex. I kept telling everyone "maybe they will give us houses and let us use IG models". Now I just feel like I have battered spouse syndrome and I keep on trying to convince people that my abusive spouse has redeeming qualities...
Actually, having some IG:ish infantry would have been pretty pointless, you can already ally with IG (or the Inquisition) if that's what you want.
Siberiandreamer wrote: Think the point is that THESE specific ones are Imperial Knights and that the traitor ones will be separate.
I tend to agree. There's precedent for this in Epic as well. People need to wait for the chaos knights before they get all up-in-arms about not being able to use them with Chaos.
If the kit looks this good, (and I've heard very few people saying they didn't like the look and aesthetic of the kit in general) imagine what the design studio will give us for chaos knights.
Just my thoughts on that. Wait and see, everyone. Wait and see.
The knights houses are known for their mechs of course - but do they also have infantry units? Would be kinda odd for any force not to have some form of standing troop force...
ncshooter426 wrote: The knights houses are known for their mechs of course - but do they also have infantry units? Would be kinda odd for any force not to have some form of standing troop force...
ncshooter426 wrote: The knights houses are known for their mechs of course - but do they also have infantry units? Would be kinda odd for any force not to have some form of standing troop force...
That is what your Guard Allies are for.
Anyone else thinking about converting Bretonnian Men-at-arms to Imperial Guard? thinking they may look nice in a Imperial Knights House colours....
Siberiandreamer wrote: Think the point is that THESE specific ones are Imperial Knights and that the traitor ones will be separate.
I tend to agree. There's precedent for this in Epic as well. People need to wait for the chaos knights before they get all up-in-arms about not being able to use them with Chaos.
If the kit looks this good, (and I've heard very few people saying they didn't like the look and aesthetic of the kit in general) imagine what the design studio will give us for chaos knights.
Just my thoughts on that. Wait and see, everyone. Wait and see.
-RT-
It's like people WANT to be upset about everything. It seems fairly straight forward to me and fluffy. The codex is a bit baffling to me; but really so many mountains out of molehills.
ncshooter426 wrote: The knights houses are known for their mechs of course - but do they also have infantry units? Would be kinda odd for any force not to have some form of standing troop force...
That is what your Guard Allies are for.
But knights are independent of the imperium - not all of them would have IG ties. So how would they get their mechs from once play to another? who services them? Who polices their worlds? They've got to have some standing army
Siberiandreamer wrote: Think the point is that THESE specific ones are Imperial Knights and that the traitor ones will be separate.
I tend to agree. There's precedent for this in Epic as well. People need to wait for the chaos knights before they get all up-in-arms about not being able to use them with Chaos.
If the kit looks this good, (and I've heard very few people saying they didn't like the look and aesthetic of the kit in general) imagine what the design studio will give us for chaos knights.
Just my thoughts on that. Wait and see, everyone. Wait and see.
-RT-
It's like people WANT to be upset about everything. It seems fairly straight forward to me and fluffy. The codex is a bit baffling to me; but really so many mountains out of molehills.
The will be a new Mechanicum list from FW soon enough (or errata for an existing one) and it will almost certainly include Imperial Knights as an Ally.
Given the reveals below, if I'm going to run one of these as an "ally", it kind of sounds like I may not need the codex, but the white dwarf rules will suffice?
Could be wrong, just wondering.
Slayer le boucher wrote: via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong...
2) Datasheets. There is a section in the codex, after organization chart, that covers Datasheets. None are mentioned but looks like these will be popping up in books...sorry everyone that don't consider them official, etc...
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll on the Knight Apparent/Knight Seneschal chart. 1 - Knight is -1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 5+ now. 2-5 Your an Imperial Knight. 6 - Knight is +1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 3+ now.
5) Concerning Warlord Traits: They range up and down from being useful to 'meh'. Examples: +1" to Run/Charge range. +1 to Building Damage Chart. My favorite: Warlord gains It Will Not Die!
6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades. They are not even listed on the ally chart.
7) The Companion Guide is amazingly beautiful for coffee table style books. Its a big book, lots of pretty pictures, etc. It does not contain rules but for collectors its a nice buy. Average guy might not buy it but dedicated collectors will want to order it. I recommend ordering it in a Games Workshop, ship to the store for safety and protection of the book.
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight.
6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades...
I wouldn't give this any real validity, especially with a disclosure like that..... people are making mountains from even less than mole hills because of this one post.....
azreal13 wrote: This individual has a perfect track record at this point, there's nothing at this point to suggest this won't maintain that, unfortunately.
Yodhrin wrote: People "change the rules" all the time, for any number of reasons, so why draw the line here and not there,...
Because people draw that line in different places, for different reasons.
You may not see any difference between 'We're agreeing to change this rule because we don't like it' and 'I want to use a model that isn't allowed by my codex because I wasn't paying any attention to the rules when I built it'... but other players do.
Nice completely fictional presentation of the opposing position there, very creative. See below.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And when you're in less informal situations with people you don't know (as a lot of people here tend to be, playing pick up games at stores rather than games in a living room with friends), going "Oh hey, I'm playing 'Nids with this awesome Knight conversion" isn't going to go down well.
I'm sorry, but saying "the game has rules" isn't a cop-out. It's the truth. The game has rules. To play the game you follow those rules. Without those rules you might as well be playing with plastic army men, going "pew pew" as you fight, and then arguing over who shot who first.
And if we were even slightly discussing such situations you might have a point, this entire thing started when someone made a post that specifically referred to gaming with friends at a club and someone took issue, that was the context I argued in as well, so you see the argument was not "saying the game has rules is a cop out", it was "saying the game has rules in order to justify refusing to let a friend use a model they spent lots of time and effort working on, while simultaneously being perfectly cool-beans with disregarding entire parts of the rules when it suits you is a cop out".
If you're(plural, nonspecific) a full-on RAW rules lawyer, cool, more power to you, but if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them" or "we use our own deployment rules because the ones in the book are moronic" or "my army is counts-as so the WYSIWYG isn't perfect", then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy, and further justification is necessary. Not because you're not allowed to object, but because you can't object using a rationale that you ignore when it suits your own preferences.
Yodhrin wrote: (...) if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them"(...), then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy
You're comparing a house rule accepted by all involved with someone showing up to play with a model they have but can't field. I have a bunch of models too, but when I show up to a friendly game I think it's on me to justify fielding a Leman Russ in my Dwarf army, not on the guy on the other side of the table, regardless of whether we agreed on previous house rules or not.
In other words, rules are rules and no Knight for you unless you can convince me you should get one.
This think looks punnier by the second, in the next pics they will be the size of a Dread...
I don't know, it looks a good inch and a half bigger than the dreadknight which is standing on a half inch raised base.
The knight isnt as big as I'd thought it would end up, partly because the wraith has kind of skewed the size of these things in my head. It still an impressive model though, not worth the cost (you can buy a tamiya 1/32 spitfire or mustang for that sort of cash, they are light years ahead in terms of quality plastic kits) but then GW models never are.
£25, not the normal price? Significantly less pages? No apparent non-really big units? Evident focus on our mutual friend the Imperial Knight Titan thing?
Sounds like quite a different codex to me, more of a spin-off. Wonder if we'll be seeing more of these in the future...?
Codex Imperial Knights Limited Edition (Direct Only) (£70)
As Above, with a Slipcase and Seven Full Colour Prints of Elevations of Famous imperial Knights.
Imperial Knights Companion (Direct Only) (£45)
Seven Major Knightly Households (Terryn, Hawkshroud, Griffith, Cadmus, Krast, Raven and Taranis - along with seven famous freeblades are discribed in detail.
-> History
-> Story
-> Elevation Images
-> Heraldry
Knights of the Imperium (Games Workshop Stores Only)(£15)
-> 126 Pages
-> Hardback
-> By Graham McNeal
-> Story of House Cadmus splliting from the Mechanicum to join imperium.
Digital Editions:
Codex Imperial Knights
Alter of War Imperial Knights
Jervis Johnson
Jervis likes digital editions because they let him release books that the beancounters wouldent let go to a minimum print run. Like War hammer Campaign books.
Houses and Heraldry
Four page article about how important Heradry is to imperial knights. Confirms there is a different plastic bit for Imperium, Mechanicum and Freeblade knights. Also, interestingly Imperial Knights have space for there "personal Heraldry" and Mechanicum knights do not, which is why the mechanicum knights have symertrical colour schemes across the shoulders and imperial knights don't. General impression is imperial knights are more into Heraldry and bluebloodedness, and mechanicum allighned houses are a bit more down to earth and buissness like.
Creating your own Freeblade
You can make your own Freeblade or indeed House of Knights. The White Dwarf Team have done so, and some of the paint schemes are quite epic.
Hold the Line
Battle report in the modern narrative style. Dark Angles with 5 Knights vs Chaos with 2 Lords of Skulls. Knights win.
Knightly Duels
An Interesting little game played with a knight paladin, a knight errant and a pack of playing cards.
Paint Splatter
This looks at the Green Freeblade (Gerantius)
Applying Transfares
Two pages of advice on getting the best out of Decals.
This Week in White Dwarf
->Small interview with Jervis about codex Knights.
Your Warlord gets some baked in stat bonuses, other knights may roll on a random table.
-> Small interview with Graham McNeal about the Novel.
His upcoming HH Novel Vengefull Spirit will Contain knights.
dantay_xv wrote: Oooh nice picture. Looks like the eldar and tau are staring at the knight as if he emitted some noxious vapour from his rear ventricles
If Chaos really can't take a knight ally then that strikes me as a really odd business decision. You know it wasn't done for the sake of balance, because as countless white wardens (lol :p) and even GW themselves have said they don't give one feth about game balance. It doesn't really make sense fluff-wise because Chaos knights do actually exist. And it makes no sense from a business perspective because GW has practically been screaming "BUY THE KNIGHT (or 6)!" at us all week long, and thus you'd think they would create any excuse imaginable for an army to be able to field one (and thus give players a reason to buy one), even re-writing existing fluff if need be, like with the Tau riptide which shouldn't really exist, that by pure coincidence can ally with damn near anyone.
My brother in particular won't be happy about this. He bought the White Dwarf with the rules specifically because he eventually planned on converting one into a Chaos knight and now GW's gaking on him again, first with "Codex: Heldrakes and Cultists" and now this. $4 DOWN THE DRAIN!
Not that I was necessarily looking forward to the idea of fighting one of these stupid fething things to begin with.
Re 'not following the rules 100%' -
I recently played a game of Escalation at my house with a bloke I met on player finder. I asked if I could take the FW Great Unclean One in my CSM army as my Lord of War. He was happy to let me do this & we had a great game (I lost but oh well).
Also does anybody know if there is any fluff about Knights fighting with the Death Guard during the Horus Heresy? (what house).
Cheers!
Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?
wuestenfux wrote: Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?
Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not play 40K... Are you being sarcastic? My understanding is that SM's are pretty much the army of choice due to their uberness.
"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?
Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not play 40K... Are you being sarcastic? My understanding is that SM's are pretty much the army of choice due to their uberness.
Vanilla Marines have not been uber for ages. Some variants, like the GK or SW, were successful, but the sad truth is, your average Tac Marine is a pretty bad unit.
wuestenfux wrote: Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?
Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not play 40K... Are you being sarcastic? My understanding is that SM's are pretty much the army of choice due to their uberness.
Vanilla Marines have not been uber for ages. Some variants, like the GK or SW, were successful, but the sad truth is, your average Tac Marine is a pretty bad unit.
Yeah, pretty much!
I mean, I thought it was pretty obvious/well known that Space Marines may sell real well, but they certainly are NOT at the top of the list in terms of "Power Rankings"!
Yodhrin wrote: (...) if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them"(...), then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy
You're comparing a house rule accepted by all involved with someone showing up to play with a model they have but can't field. I have a bunch of models too, but when I show up to a friendly game I think it's on me to justify fielding a Leman Russ in my Dwarf army, not on the guy on the other side of the table, regardless of whether we agreed on previous house rules or not.
In other words, rules are rules and no Knight for you unless you can convince me you should get one.
No, I am comparing the attitude of the person who would, when asked, make an agreement to bend and break the rules in the first case, and refuse to make that agreement in the latter case. "Can we just pick Warlord Traits? I think rolling for them is daft." "Yes, no problem." - "Do you mind if I ally this Knight I spent hours carefully converting to fit the theme to my Orks/Chaos Marines/Tyranids but treat it as Battle Brothers?" "NEVAR! RULES ARE RULES!". If you honestly can't see the disconnect in reasoning there....well, you're sitting there making posts where you compare modifying the Allies chart a bit to taking a 40K tank in a Fantasy army, so you're evidently not interested in actually discussing this.
Yodhrin wrote: (...) if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them"(...), then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy
You're comparing a house rule accepted by all involved with someone showing up to play with a model they have but can't field. I have a bunch of models too, but when I show up to a friendly game I think it's on me to justify fielding a Leman Russ in my Dwarf army, not on the guy on the other side of the table, regardless of whether we agreed on previous house rules or not.
In other words, rules are rules and no Knight for you unless you can convince me you should get one.
No, I am comparing the attitude of the person who would, when asked, make an agreement to bend and break the rules in the first case, and refuse to make that agreement in the latter case. "Can we just pick Warlord Traits? I think rolling for them is daft." "Yes, no problem." - "Do you mind if I ally this Knight I spent hours carefully converting to fit the theme to my Orks/Chaos Marines/Tyranids but treat it as Battle Brothers?" "NEVAR! RULES ARE RULES!". If you honestly can't see the disconnect in reasoning there....well, you're sitting there making posts where you compare modifying the Allies chart a bit to taking a 40K tank in a Fantasy army, so you're evidently not interested in actually discussing this.
There no disconnect, there's just points on a curve, and different people have different thresholds at where in the curve they draw the line.
"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.
How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere. It's in line with the two week old rumour that you can make Knights a stand-alone army, but imperial armies can also take a detachment of 3 as allies.
"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.
How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.
Separate detachment from allies and lord of war means, from what it says there, you don't worry about the allies matrix to assign the detachment. Like the Tau dataslate or the Storm Talon one.
"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.
How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.
Not according to another rumor that states:
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.
How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.
Not according to another rumor that states:
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
That's the same rumor. So Gabe is saying, you can take them as a detachment or as allies. At least that's how I read it.
via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong...
2) Datasheets. There is a section in the codex, after organization chart, that covers Datasheets. None are mentioned but looks like these will be popping up in books...sorry everyone that don't consider them official, etc...
3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids
4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll on the Knight Apparent/Knight Seneschal chart. 1 - Knight is -1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 5+ now. 2-5 Your an Imperial Knight. 6 - Knight is +1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 3+ now.
5) Concerning Warlord Traits: They range up and down from being useful to 'meh'. Examples: +1" to Run/Charge range. +1 to Building Damage Chart. My favorite: Warlord gains It Will Not Die!
6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades. They are not even listed on the ally chart.
7) The Companion Guide is amazingly beautiful for coffee table style books. Its a big book, lots of pretty pictures, etc. It does not contain rules but for collectors its a nice buy. Average guy might not buy it but dedicated collectors will want to order it. I recommend ordering it in a Games Workshop, ship to the store for safety and protection of the book.
"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.
How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.
Separate detachment from allies and lord of war means, from what it says there, you don't worry about the allies matrix to assign the detachment. Like the Tau dataslate or the Storm Talon one.
That's not correct at all. Why are you assuming Tau dataslate? Be'lakor dataslate specifies which armies have access to it. You're just jumping to conclusions. The allied Knights may very well be 'dataslate' allies that don't take any force organisation slots, but they also may still be restricted to Imperial armies.
Therion wrote: That's not correct at all. Why are you assuming Tau dataslate? Be'lakor dataslate specifies which armies have access to it. You're just jumping to conclusions. The allied Knights may very well be 'dataslate' allies that don't take any force organisation slots, but they also may still be restricted to Imperial armies.
I'm just reading what Father Gabe wrote. He says "1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
Separate detachment from allies. Meaning not using the allies system. Really, we have to wait for the book, but I'm just parsing his rumor.
Therion wrote: That's not correct at all. Why are you assuming Tau dataslate? Be'lakor dataslate specifies which armies have access to it. You're just jumping to conclusions. The allied Knights may very well be 'dataslate' allies that don't take any force organisation slots, but they also may still be restricted to Imperial armies.
I'm just reading what Father Gabe wrote. He says "1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "
Separate detachment from allies. Meaning not using the allies system. Really, we have to wait for the book, but I'm just parsing his rumor.
Double post? You said that already. We agree it's very confusing Knights could be taken as a dataslate or as allies. However thinking that Tyranids have access to the dataslate is just jumping to conclusions with no evidence that would point to that direction.
If you're interested in pursuing this fantasy, try to explain to us what the meaningful difference would be between a 'special detachment of 3 Knights' as dataslate allies, or as simply taking an allied detachment of 3 Knights? The former would follow no allies rules, so they wouldn't be battle brothers, desperate allies, allies of convenience or enemies? What would they be? Would you be able to cast spells on your special buddy Knights? There's no reasonable train of thought that can allow you to have allies in your army that don't follow any rules for allies. The only logical explanation is that the detachment of 3 Knights don't take any force organisation slots, nor do they count as an additional primary detachment. They'll still follow the other rules for allies and the restrictions therein.
So are fire warriors, but I'd be facing a lynch mob if I tried to argue that Tau were bad because of that one unit.
In any case, the new SM codex isn't amazing, but I bet you a dollar it'll hold up far better for far longer than either the Tau or Eldar codexes that everyone is bitching about right now. All it'll take is a BRB change to favor assault more than shooting and you'll likely never see a Tau army on the table again (can't speak for Eldar but shooting seems to be much their thing as well)...and wouldn't you know it, there's a rumored 7th edition coming out this year which could very well do just that.
So are fire warriors, but I'd be facing a lynch mob if I tried to argue that Tau were bad because of that one unit.
In any case, the new SM codex isn't amazing, but I bet you a dollar it'll hold up far better for far longer than either the Tau or Eldar codexes that everyone is bitching about right now. All it'll take is a BRB change to favor assault more than shooting and you'll likely never see a Tau army on the table again (can't speak for Eldar but shooting seems to be much their thing as well)...and wouldn't you know it, there's a rumored 7th edition coming out this year which could very well do just that.
Somehow I get the feeling that 7th edition will just do away with elite infantry in general. If you're infantry or a standard vehicle the more you cost the worse you'll be. Why? Because the edition will be ruled by Titans. When the templates drop on you the toughness, wounds, armour saves, invulnerable saves and cover saves all count for nothing. Knights have their spot in the sun for a few months from here to summer. Then their big brothers come out and Knights will be parked in the garage again.
It's a real cold war arms race going on out there in the 40K universe. Tons of people are stocking up on Knights and all the others are stocking up on things that can kill them, but soon enough Knights will be small potatoes and it's time to invest on a Warhound, a Reaver, or two. Afterall, at 2000 points you can already get two Warhounds since you get double FOC. What happens next? One party in the arms race goes broke?
Sidstyler wrote: If Chaos really can't take a knight ally then that strikes me as a really odd business decision. You know it wasn't done for the sake of balance, because as countless white wardens (lol :p) and even GW themselves have said they don't give one feth about game balance. It doesn't really make sense fluff-wise because Chaos knights do actually exist. And it makes no sense from a business perspective because GW has practically been screaming "BUY THE KNIGHT (or 6)!" at us all week long, and thus you'd think they would create any excuse imaginable for an army to be able to field one (and thus give players a reason to buy one), even re-writing existing fluff if need be, like with the Tau riptide which shouldn't really exist, that by pure coincidence can ally with damn near anyone.
My brother in particular won't be happy about this. He bought the White Dwarf with the rules specifically because he eventually planned on converting one into a Chaos knight and now GW's gaking on him again, first with "Codex: Heldrakes and Cultists" and now this. $4 DOWN THE DRAIN!
Not that I was necessarily looking forward to the idea of fighting one of these stupid fething things to begin with.
The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.
Sidstyler wrote: If Chaos really can't take a knight ally then that strikes me as a really odd business decision. You know it wasn't done for the sake of balance, because as countless white wardens (lol :p) and even GW themselves have said they don't give one feth about game balance. It doesn't really make sense fluff-wise because Chaos knights do actually exist. And it makes no sense from a business perspective because GW has practically been screaming "BUY THE KNIGHT (or 6)!" at us all week long, and thus you'd think they would create any excuse imaginable for an army to be able to field one (and thus give players a reason to buy one), even re-writing existing fluff if need be, like with the Tau riptide which shouldn't really exist, that by pure coincidence can ally with damn near anyone.
My brother in particular won't be happy about this. He bought the White Dwarf with the rules specifically because he eventually planned on converting one into a Chaos knight and now GW's gaking on him again, first with "Codex: Heldrakes and Cultists" and now this. $4 DOWN THE DRAIN!
Not that I was necessarily looking forward to the idea of fighting one of these stupid fething things to begin with.
The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.
Since Eldar and Tau can ally with them (which I find utterly idiotic) one could hope actual Chaos Knights are on the way. It only requires one spiky bitz sprue and a dataslate in a weekly WD. However, there's also the possibility GW thinks Chaos already have their Knights in the form of the weird Khorne thing on wheels and the fugly Fiends.
The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.
Well, I'm neither a mind reader nor a rumor monger, but to me , the fact it cannot ally with Chaos tells me one thing, and one thing only.
So are fire warriors, but I'd be facing a lynch mob if I tried to argue that Tau were bad because of that one unit.
I'd argue that Fire Warriors are better than SM simply because you have to pay less to get your scoring chaff out of the way and taking them enables much better units in your FOC compared to what Tacs give you. SM have historically very flat power curve that goes from meh to fair.
The problem with Tacs is that they're priced accurately for early 3rd edition. These days they almost never take saves, small arms fire is meh in general, high overall stats mean little with no focus on specific roles, etc. So I guess it's not that Tacs are bad, it's just that the game haven't been about infantry combat for a long time now and paying premium for grunts just doesn't cut it.
The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.
Well, I'm neither a mind reader nor a rumor monger, but to me , the fact it cannot ally with Chaos tells me one thing, and one thing only.
Chaos knights are coming.
I wouldn't be surprised if a chaos one has a rage table were you shoot your own guys, less bs and ws then the imperials, and some other thing taced on for "fluff" that makes it worse then the normal one and then expect you to pay the same amount of points.
Then i can get called a waac gamer for not likeing it.
The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.
Well, I'm neither a mind reader nor a rumor monger, but to me , the fact it cannot ally with Chaos tells me one thing, and one thing only.
This think looks punnier by the second, in the next pics they will be the size of a Dread...
Wow, the 15mm Leviathan Crusader is looking really really close all of the sudden. Mark must either be rounding down or the GW crew is rounding up. With a little rubble on the base, the Crusader is there!
Ok, now I get the base-size difference. That's a big base.
I suspect we've entered phase 2 of the base-size arms race. Almost everyone has their big oval base miniature, so now everyone gets their even bigger oval base miniature over the next couple of years.
NoseGoblin wrote: Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not play 40K... Are you being sarcastic? My understanding is that SM's are pretty much the army of choice due to their uberness.
There is some argument now because Tau and Eldar are full of weapons that make power armor kind of a pricey item with no effect. So it really depends on your meta. In my regular group marines are still an effective force on the table because there is not a single Tau-dar force to be seen anywhere that apparently appear in droves everywhere else.
Siberiandreamer wrote: Think the point is that THESE specific ones are Imperial Knights and that the traitor ones will be separate.
I tend to agree. There's precedent for this in Epic as well. People need to wait for the chaos knights before they get all up-in-arms about not being able to use them with Chaos.
If the kit looks this good, (and I've heard very few people saying they didn't like the look and aesthetic of the kit in general) imagine what the design studio will give us for chaos knights.
Just my thoughts on that. Wait and see, everyone. Wait and see.
-RT-
Well if it is like the rhino or Land raider to have an extra sprue with chaos stuff for the same price would make it interesting. but it will probably be higher in price.
Zweischneid that assassin codex had a different price tag than the knights codex.
Hmmm, I know I am beating a dead cat here, but my Nemesis measures just shy of 6" tall, at the gears (shoulder area)... My Riptide measures 6" too... How on Earth is the Knight supposedly 6" tall? It clearly stands above a Nemesis (and in another photo, above the Riptide), which even has a 1/4" to 1/2" extra on the base... I guess we will all find out Saturday when we get ours. Can anyone take a normal photo? Not downward, or upward, or models in the background... Just a level picture, with models evenly next to eachother, with *gasp* a ruler next to the model? It would be frakking sweet if this were to be 8" after all......
Sidstyler wrote: If Chaos really can't take a knight ally then that strikes me as a really odd business decision. You know it wasn't done for the sake of balance, because as countless white wardens (lol :p) and even GW themselves have said they don't give one feth about game balance. It doesn't really make sense fluff-wise because Chaos knights do actually exist. And it makes no sense from a business perspective because GW has practically been screaming "BUY THE KNIGHT (or 6)!" at us all week long, and thus you'd think they would create any excuse imaginable for an army to be able to field one (and thus give players a reason to buy one), even re-writing existing fluff if need be, like with the Tau riptide which shouldn't really exist, that by pure coincidence can ally with damn near anyone.
My brother in particular won't be happy about this. He bought the White Dwarf with the rules specifically because he eventually planned on converting one into a Chaos knight and now GW's gaking on him again, first with "Codex: Heldrakes and Cultists" and now this. $4 DOWN THE DRAIN!
Not that I was necessarily looking forward to the idea of fighting one of these stupid fething things to begin with.
The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.
Since Eldar and Tau can ally with them (which I find utterly idiotic) one could hope actual Chaos Knights are on the way. It only requires one spiky bitz sprue and a dataslate in a weekly WD. However, there's also the possibility GW thinks Chaos already have their Knights in the form of the weird Khorne thing on wheels and the fugly Fiends.
How is that idiotic? I'm sure Freeblades would be much more willing to join them, unless you're purely talking about Imperial Knights and not Freeblades
Hmmm, I know I am beating a dead cat here, but my Nemesis measures just shy of 6" tall, at the gears (shoulder area)... My Riptide measures 6" too... How on Earth is the Knight supposedly 6" tall?
I don't think a Nemesis is 6" tall. Looking at pictures on google, it's shorter than a Trygon and the Trygon isn't even 5 and a half inches tall, so I'm guessing the Nemesis is less than 5" tall. The Riptide also looks a smidge shorter than a Trygon, so maybe a bit over 5" tall.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ok, now I get the base-size difference. That's a big base.
I suspect we've entered phase 2 of the base-size arms race. Almost everyone has their big oval base miniature, so now everyone gets their even bigger oval base miniature over the next couple of years.
I'm calling "Plastic Squiggoth" right now.
That would be interesting. I wonder if that thread will instead have arguments about Imperial players wanting special dispension to use it in their armies as an AdMech rhino power ranger.
Somehow I get the feeling that 7th edition will just do away with elite infantry in general. If you're infantry or a standard vehicle the more you cost the worse you'll be. Why? Because the edition will be ruled by Titans. When the templates drop on you the toughness, wounds, armour saves, invulnerable saves and cover saves all count for nothing. Knights have their spot in the sun for a few months from here to summer. Then their big brothers come out and Knights will be parked in the garage again.
It's a real cold war arms race going on out there in the 40K universe. Tons of people are stocking up on Knights and all the others are stocking up on things that can kill them, but soon enough Knights will be small potatoes and it's time to invest on a Warhound, a Reaver, or two. Afterall, at 2000 points you can already get two Warhounds since you get double FOC. What happens next? One party in the arms race goes broke?
It sort of reminds me of the way flyers made their way onto the scene. Little by little - Stormraven in a codex or two, Night Scythes, then boom - full on flyers in 6th with amendments to older flyers such as Vendettas/Valkyries. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if we see the same progression with super-heavies. Wonder if the new IG. . .err Astra Militaris. . .codex will have entries for Baneblades/Stormlords, etc., etc.
warboss wrote: That would be interesting. I wonder if that thread will instead have arguments about Imperial players wanting special dispension to use it in their armies as an AdMech rhino power ranger.
I hope so, 'cause who needs "rules" and "structure" or any of that malarkey.
At first I was hesitant about posting this here, but seeing all the off-topic stuff about Marines saves versus Eldar and Tau and so on, this is worth posting here.
10" tall, cheaper than a Knight model from GW, and 100% kick-arse. While it's obviously a display piece, I have a feeling it might also be doing some moonlighting work as a Warhound. The big old great grand daddy of those Space Crusade Dreadnoughts...
I am wondering if they only made it a superheavy due to how weak normal vehicles are in the current format. At least as a superheavy it has more survivability
Well, I could imagine a shifting of the current game based on infantry to hold objectives to an Admech game where larger warmachines control the battle field able to hold or contest objective.
This may end up in a total mess where in friendly games you have to negotiate first with your friend what supplements or codices (Knights) are admitted. The same holds for tournaments which could make the tournament scene very heterogeneous.
Thats a farly decent video and gives a good insight into how easy it is to work on.
Thanks for that. I assume if you didnt stick the armour down then it would be aesy to remove the arms for transporting and future weapons swars if that ever happens?
Sorry I had to watch with now sound (in the office)
Measuring models from my own collection:
Forgeworld and GWS Trygons come in at just under 5.5" at the head
Dreadknight is just under 5"
Riptide is just over 5"
Wraithknight is just under 8.5"
Stompa is 9" at the head
Not including the bases they're standing on.
I'm going to take a guess that the Imperial Knight is just under 8" from the 2 images I've seen.
Though you can see why the legs are fixed with all those pistons and things, it's going to be a pain to change the stance
Maybe, but the legs are too short and stubby as is anyway. It is far too top heavy the more I look at it.
Yeah, it does look especially top heavy when you are looking at it from slightly above as well (I think most the shots have been on it's own level if not looking up at it, which somewhat hides the sheer bulk of it).
I still like it, but yeah, very top heavy. I don't think I want to make the stance any narrower or it'd just look even more top heavy.
They probably should have made it 8", but kept the same torso size and made the legs thicker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Zande4 wrote: Measuring models from my own collection: Forgeworld and GWS Trygons come in at just under 5.5" at the head Dreadknight is just under 5" Riptide is just over 5" Wraithknight is just under 8.5" Stompa is 9" at the head Not including the bases they're standing on.
I'm going to take a guess that the Imperial Knight is just under 8" from the 2 images I've seen.
I still think it's 6" based on the earlier images we've seen and the fact the GW site now says 6", lol. But whoever buys one tomorrow can measure it and let us know. I'll probably head to my local GW tomorrow anyway, if they have one I'll measure it, but I don't intend to buy one yet (have too many projects already, need to fill out my IG army some more before I get the Imp Knight).
Not that I know about, it's bigger than a flyer base, looks to be the same size on the short axis and bigger on the long axis. If no one has got one by tomorrow when I go to GW, I'll see if I can measure one.
Yodhrin wrote: (...) if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them"(...), then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy
You're comparing a house rule accepted by all involved with someone showing up to play with a model they have but can't field. I have a bunch of models too, but when I show up to a friendly game I think it's on me to justify fielding a Leman Russ in my Dwarf army, not on the guy on the other side of the table, regardless of whether we agreed on previous house rules or not.
In other words, rules are rules and no Knight for you unless you can convince me you should get one.
No, I am comparing the attitude of the person who would, when asked, make an agreement to bend and break the rules in the first case, and refuse to make that agreement in the latter case. "Can we just pick Warlord Traits? I think rolling for them is daft." "Yes, no problem." - "Do you mind if I ally this Knight I spent hours carefully converting to fit the theme to my Orks/Chaos Marines/Tyranids but treat it as Battle Brothers?" "NEVAR! RULES ARE RULES!". If you honestly can't see the disconnect in reasoning there....well, you're sitting there making posts where you compare modifying the Allies chart a bit to taking a 40K tank in a Fantasy army, so you're evidently not interested in actually discussing this.
There no disconnect, there's just points on a curve, and different people have different thresholds at where in the curve they draw the line.
Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I'm not seeing a curve, I'm seeing people using a logical path to justify one thing, and then refusing to recognise that same logical path when it doesn't suit them.
OT: Have these things actually sold out? I went round the indies this morning looking at prices, some have shifted to "will ship from 7th", so I looked at the GW site and the Availability now reads "1-2 weeks".
Yodhrin wrote: Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I'm not seeing a curve, I'm seeing people using a logical path to justify one thing, and then refusing to recognise that same logical path when it doesn't suit them..
Well, yes, you're not going to see much of a curve when you've only plotted two points...
Yodhrin wrote: Then we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I'm not seeing a curve, I'm seeing people using a logical path to justify one thing, and then refusing to recognise that same logical path when it doesn't suit them..
Well, yes, you're not going to see much of a curve when you've only plotted two points...
Seriously? OK, fine, put as many points on your wee "curve" as you like, my argument still holds; pick any two points on the curve, be permissive of one(or many, or all BUT one) and refuse the other, now justify why your rationale applies to the first and not the second. Easy as that. If you want to respond with "I just don't like the second one" or "because...", fine, do that, just don't pretend that holding both positions at once is justifiable beyond "I don't wanna!".
I went on the website to check if the Knight's availability was as dire as that. My first thought was "Cool! They lowered the price!" Then I checked and I was indeed looking at Australian prices.
Man, I am a huge huge fan of Epic - from Adeptus Titanicus through Space Marine and Titan Legions. I own approximately 60 Titans - a dozen Warhound battlegroups, a dozen Reavers, dozens of Warlords and some Imperators (and over a dozen Gargants and over a dozen Eldar titans as well). I've had every edition of Knight released in Epic from the original awkward Knights in 1989 or so to the redesigned 1993-1994 era.
This kit looks like crap.
The legs are tiny and the torso is about 50% larger than it should be. The side-view pics say it all. What an ungainly turd.
One of the main turnoffs for Warmachine for me is the visual style, especially of the Warjacks. This Knight looks like a Knight Paladin banged a Warjack and produced this awful offspring.
Alpharius wrote:I do believe I'm starting to figure the good Judge out...
judgedoug wrote:One of the main turnoffs for Warmachine for me is the visual style, especially of the Warjacks. This Knight looks like a Knight Paladin banged a Warjack and produced this awful offspring.
No, but that's an interesting addition to the list, I guess!
Overall, I'd say the Knight kit is a resounding success for GW.
It fits their aesthetic, obviously, and it has gotten a lot of people excited about it, and fielding it.
I still think it really doesn't 'belong' in a 'regular' game of 40K, but then, I don't really think flyers, super-heavies and Titans do either, outside of Apocalypse.
GW clearly does though, so, I'm either going to have to get used to it, count on TOs to 'regulate and balance' the game since GW can't/won't, or find some other SF skirmish game to play.
Well, just got word that my FLGS has not received its shipment of Knights. Probably won't show up until next week. But guess what did show up on time? The company rags! melon-fethers!
Alpharius wrote: I still think it really doesn't 'belong' in a 'regular' game of 40K, but then, I don't really think flyers, super-heavies and Titans do either, outside of Apocalypse.
GW clearly does though, so, I'm either going to have to get used to it, count on TOs to 'regulate and balance' the game since GW can't/won't, or find some other SF skirmish game to play.
Yeah, but I think that local groups / TOs will handle it pretty well. I'm not worried. I have had very few bad games over the last 10-15 years and that's a testament to the players I actually play and the events I go to. Surprisingly, they have little similarity to the alarmism I have heard over that same period on the internet.
One of the last 40k games I played was at a nearby tournament.
The guy who won was supposedly a 'local tournament expert' and was fielding Space Marine army, with an Ironclad Dreadnought in the Forgedworld Drop Pod allied with Deathwing and having Belial as Warlord (yup, I noted this was illegal, but that guy was the local tournament expert and I was just a visitor).
So yeah, Pretre, count yourself very lucky indeed.
Compel wrote: One of the last 40k games I played was at a nearby tournament.
The guy who won was supposedly a 'local tournament expert' and was fielding Space Marine army, with an Ironclad Dreadnought in the Forgedworld Drop Pod allied with Deathwing and having Belial as Warlord (yup, I noted this was illegal, but that guy was the local tournament expert and I was just a visitor).
So yeah, Pretre, count yourself very lucky indeed.
I'm not saying I have never seen shenanigans, but I think they are really few and far between. I certainly hear about them enough on here though. That being said, come move to beautiful Portland, Oregon!
The Knights at our FLGS had to be overnighted it seems. Store owner has to go pick them up at Fed-Ex. White dwarf is neat with a pretty good Paint section though
Alpharius wrote: No, but that's an interesting addition to the list, I guess!
Overall, I'd say the Knight kit is a resounding success for GW.
I really really WANT to like it, but it's so dumpy. It's like the same terrible Mantic troll design aesthetic - bulbous upper torso and tiny legs.
The Epic knights are roughly 60-65% leg/lower torso with big ol' leg/shin armor... the new 40k one is about 45% legs/lower torso with tiny baby legs.
I'm reallly reaaallllly sad. I love FW's warhounds and reavers, and was so excited from the blurry pics that I might actually get a sweet 40k scaled Knight model. Then the side and front views came out. *cries* Look at it from the side view! What were they thinking?!
The lower legs/ shins need at least another half-inch added. Maybe an inch. I wonder if I can convert a Knight with portions of a Dreamforge Leviathan to bulk up the legs. Or if I even feel like spending that kind of money and/or time. :(
It looks to be very similar to the "Uniforms and Heraldry" books that they did for High Elves, the Empire, and Skaven with lots of color plates showcasing "different units" and giving background of them.
Compel wrote: They're really milking it this time... I'm sure its a good move though, I imagine people will be buying anything Knight related no matter what.
Yeah, maybe. It's a lot of material given that it's only 1 model. 1 model with which to make an army along with a $41 codex ($115 limited edition), $74 companion.
If the rumours are true and there really is no rules for anything else beside that 1 model, I'm a bit disappointed.
I'm really not a fan of this trend towards oval bases on the big stuff. When turning on the spot alters how far you can move, something is awry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mathieu Raymond wrote: I went on the website to check if the Knight's availability was as dire as that. My first thought was "Cool! They lowered the price!" Then I checked and I was indeed looking at Australian prices..
It's like we've entered some weird bizarro-backwards universe.
In the glorious years of the Great Crusade the lost Knight worlds were reunited with the emerging Imperium after centuries of isolation. Piloted by a Noble and crafted utilizing forgotten technology, the Knight suits are the ultimate weapon of war.
Within the 64 pages of this hardback, full-colour book you will find:
- A comprehensive history of the Imperial Knights from the Horus Heresy to the Time of Ending.
- Inspiring heraldry and history of a number of major Knightly Houses.
- Informative background information concentrating on two patterns of Knight suit; the Knight Errant and the Knight Paladin. - Full rules for fielding a detachment of Imperial Knights as a force in Warhammer 40,000, or as an allied detachment to an Imperial force.
So it looks like there are just two types of unit in this book.
In the glorious years of the Great Crusade the lost Knight worlds were reunited with the emerging Imperium after centuries of isolation. Piloted by a Noble and crafted utilizing forgotten technology, the Knight suits are the ultimate weapon of war.
Within the 64 pages of this hardback, full-colour book you will find:
- A comprehensive history of the Imperial Knights from the Horus Heresy to the Time of Ending.
- Inspiring heraldry and history of a number of major Knightly Houses.
- Informative background information concentrating on two patterns of Knight suit; the Knight Errant and the Knight Paladin. - Full rules for fielding a detachment of Imperial Knights as a force in Warhammer 40,000, or as an allied detachment to an Imperial force.
So it looks like there are just two types of unit in this book.
one of the employees at my local GW has the codex already, I can confirm that there are really just 2 units in the entire book. I just skimmed through it quickly but it looks to be that the only new rule in the book is their personal warlord table. oh, and they have their own ally chart in the book.
Yeah I noticed that as well, seems GW has fired all the proof readers too
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fullheadofhair wrote: So, do I understand this correctly. To use one of these models in your SM army for example you need to shell of $41 for a codex and $140 for a model?
fullheadofhair wrote: So, do I understand this correctly. To use one of these models in your SM army for example you need to shell of $41 for a codex and $140 for a model?
So a $180 one model unit?
You will also likely need escalation, as I doubt GW would do consumers a kindness like including what a super heavy walker is and how it works in the codex about them.
fullheadofhair wrote: So, do I understand this correctly. To use one of these models in your SM army for example you need to shell of $41 for a codex and $140 for a model?
So a $180 one model unit?
I see you are new to WH40K, and GW in general. Welcome! Save some of that outrage for the next release...
fullheadofhair wrote: So, do I understand this correctly. To use one of these models in your SM army for example you need to shell of $41 for a codex and $140 for a model?
So a $180 one model unit?
But you save 40 on the next Knight as you already have the Codex!
fullheadofhair wrote: So, do I understand this correctly. To use one of these models in your SM army for example you need to shell of $41 for a codex and $140 for a model?
So a $180 one model unit?
You will also likely need escalation, as I doubt GW would do consumers a kindness like including what a super heavy walker is and how it works in the codex about them.
The codex should have all the relevant rules for the units inside all the other codexes have specialized rules in them.
fullheadofhair wrote: So, do I understand this correctly. To use one of these models in your SM army for example you need to shell of $41 for a codex and $140 for a model?
So a $180 one model unit?
You will also likely need escalation, as I doubt GW would do consumers a kindness like including what a super heavy walker is and how it works in the codex about them.
The codex should have all the relevant rules for the units inside all the other codexes have specialized rules in them.
We shall see. From my perspective, the whole thing is designed to lubricate forcing escalation down everyone's throat, seems like a poor plan if you don't need to buy it to run a super heavy. I mean, they're selling a codex for a single model and you think these sickos are decent enough to not make you buy more than one book to run said model? C'mon now, the whole point is to get fence sitters slapping down the cash for escalation, that and cynically generate untold sums of money for kirby et al. Codex: Restore Inverstor Confidence errr Knights has setup the end game of gouging for terrible rulesets.
Yeah I noticed that as well, seems GW has fired all the proof readers too
That and the knights are "crafted utilizing forgotten technology." If the technology is forgotten, how are they being crafted again?
forgotten by terra, not knight worlds....
Yeah, I understood what it meant, it just seemed like poor word choice.
@Crablezworth
Also, there is no going back now. It's sort of like the saying, "A mind once stretched by a new idea never regains its original dimensions." 40k has been expanded to include super-heavies. I doubt we'll see a retraction of that in 7th or further. Now, I could be wrong and they could retract all the rules after they figure they've gotten all the sales they're going to get. That seems just dastardly enough that they might do it.
If you loved 5th or prior, then you need to play those editions because they're passing the point of no return (not that they've ever returned to an edition, but they're truly shifting the mold that was once 40K).
ironicsilence wrote: Do you guys think that given the fact that the knights cant currently be played in a standard game of 40k, the overall sales will be impacted?
So off topic chat brings pictures of lovely ladies from at least 2 mods now. What's the incentive for staying on topic again?
Back OT
I think the idea of the Codex only being two entries has killed a big part of my enthusiasm about this release. If the full rules for the Knight are not covered in it and it requires me to buy escalation/apocalypse that'll be it completely dead.
ironicsilence wrote: Do you guys think that given the fact that the knights cant currently be played in a standard game of 40k, the overall sales will be impacted?
How so?
knights are super heavies....unless I missed a major 40k update somewhere....super heavies are apoc and escalation only. My gaming group for instances only plays "standard" 40k so no super heavies and other toys in our games
ironicsilence wrote: Do you guys think that given the fact that the knights cant currently be played in a standard game of 40k, the overall sales will be impacted?
How so?
I was at my GW today, and was saying to the manager my 1500 Guard army will be bolstered with the IK, and a squad of LotD, making my 2k game. I specifically asked "It can be used in standard 2k games, right?" He said yes, and as we were talking fedex delivered the codex, books, etc! We broke one open, and viola! IKs can be used in reg games!
ironicsilence wrote: Do you guys think that given the fact that the knights cant currently be played in a standard game of 40k, the overall sales will be impacted?
How so?
I was at my GW today, and was saying to the manager my 1500 Guard army will be bolstered with the IK, and a squad of LotD, making my 2k game. I specifically asked "It can be used in standard 2k games, right?" He said yes, and as we were talking fedex delivered the codex, books, etc! We broke one open, and viola! IKs can be used in reg games!
will be interesting if thats the case. Wonder what slot a super heavy fills up in the org chart?
ironicsilence wrote: Do you guys think that given the fact that the knights cant currently be played in a standard game of 40k, the overall sales will be impacted?
How so?
knights are super heavies....unless I missed a major 40k update somewhere....super heavies are apoc and escalation only. My gaming group for instances only plays "standard" 40k so no super heavies and other toys in our games
While they are super and heavy, they actually, somehow, are legal in non apoc and escalation. They can even ally with everyone but Nids if I recall correctly.
knights are super heavies....unless I missed a major 40k update somewhere....super heavies are apoc and escalation only.
You're creating a distinction that doesn't exist in the rules. Escalation is an update to 'standard' 40k, not a separate game.
welp that explains it, i also thought escalation was like a step between 40k and apoc, now if I can just get my gaming group to stop being a pain and refusing to play anything fun
knights are super heavies....unless I missed a major 40k update somewhere....super heavies are apoc and escalation only.
You're creating a distinction that doesn't exist in the rules. Escalation is an update to 'standard' 40k, not a separate game.
Does it say that you must use these rules when playing 40K? If no than you don't have to use it. It's like apocalypse for cities of death, a rules supplement. It changes how the core rules of the game work.
knights are super heavies....unless I missed a major 40k update somewhere....super heavies are apoc and escalation only.
You're creating a distinction that doesn't exist in the rules. Escalation is an update to 'standard' 40k, not a separate game.
welp that explains it, i also thought escalation was like a step between 40k and apoc, now if I can just get my gaming group to stop being a pain and refusing to play anything fun
don't need apoc or esc to play IKs! I just left GW, and manager and I went through codex... For use in reg games!
I'm a bit surprised by the anger over the codex only having limited rules...would every feel better if they called it a Supplement instead of a codex? My iyanden supplement has what maybe a page or 3 of new stuff in it? Its all fluff as well
Automatically Appended Next Post: also has anyone actually assembled the model and gotten a real height for it yet? Seems to be ALOT of conflicting measurements floating around
ironicsilence wrote: I'm a bit surprised by the anger over the codex only having limited rules...would every feel better if they called it a Supplement instead of a codex? My iyanden supplement has what maybe a page or 3 of new stuff in it? Its all fluff as well
Don't you still need the Eldar Codex for that to work though? What Codex would this be a supplement to?
ironicsilence wrote: I'm a bit surprised by the anger over the codex only having limited rules...would every feel better if they called it a Supplement instead of a codex? My iyanden supplement has what maybe a page or 3 of new stuff in it? Its all fluff as well
Don't you still need the Eldar Codex for that to work though? What Codex would this be a supplement to?
you sure do, in order to "play" you need both books, which is 100 bucks. I'm also interested....will the codex contain any rules that the WD didnt? Is the fluff the only reason to buy the codex?
BlackTalos wrote: 2 Models in 1 Codex, indeed! GW has even described it so, saying "The codex will be mainly fluff" =P
And on fluff, a question:
It seems, and with all descriptions, codex snapshots etc, that they have 1 Noble pilot?
Since the M12 or something when men went to the stars, there's been 1 pilot?
They seem more immortal than the emperor himself!
(Fluff just seems broken
They mean that the knight has a crew of one, not that the same guy has been in the seat since it was built.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ironicsilence wrote: I'm a bit surprised by the anger over the codex only having limited rules...would every feel better if they called it a Supplement instead of a codex?
I don't care a jot what they call it. Its the price for the sake of rules for two units that I object to.
Regarding the Knights... I'd have been happier if they priced it at £20 but oh well....
The limited edition codex is looking mightly NON tempting right now. Its £70 for a thin book and some art prints.
I'm more inclined to buy the Codex/Heraldry book/Novella for a little more and get alot more content (as Im actually interested in the background/paint schemes etc for once)
Also let me get this straight? the codex only has two unit entries? the same ones as in WD??? That sucks a bit I was hoping for a couple more variants!
"each Freeblade (...) if he chose to reveal his past" and "after many years of relentless warfare, some knights may even have forgotten why they took their first step along the path of the Freeblade."
Just sounds like 1 guy to me =P
Houses, yes, but explain Freeblades... unless it's a father-son thing (and then mother?)... problems, just problems lol
Regarding the Knights... I'd have been happier if they priced it at £20 but oh well....
The limited edition codex is looking mightly NON tempting right now. Its £70 for a thin book and some art prints.
I'm more inclined to buy the Codex/Heraldry book/Novella for a little more and get alot more content (as Im actually interested in the background/paint schemes etc for once)
Also let me get this straight? the codex only has two unit entries? the same ones as in WD??? That sucks a bit I was hoping for a couple more variants!
Indeed it does, however to note: It seems they will have "Pilots" to make up/smooth points and which will probably add WS characteristics or other changes like that (for like 50pts or 75, etc)
ironicsilence wrote: I'm a bit surprised by the anger over the codex only having limited rules...would every feel better if they called it a Supplement instead of a codex?
I don't care a jot what they call it. Its the price for the sake of rules for two units that I object to.
The cost for the rules is pretty disgraceful, the fluff does add value but it shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm more worried about the potential for this to become a trend in the dilution of content in what we traditionally consider a "Codex" to be.
ironicsilence wrote: I'm a bit surprised by the anger over the codex only having limited rules...would every feel better if they called it a Supplement instead of a codex?
I don't care a jot what they call it. Its the price for the sake of rules for two units that I object to.
The cost for the rules is pretty disgraceful, the fluff does add value but it shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm more worried about the potential for this to become a trend in the dilution of content in what we traditionally consider a "Codex" to be.
Just imagine how many ways GW could slice up the Codex: SM if they wanted to milk it. A basic Codex with only the most basic units... Another one for the heavier vehicles and another for the other fancy units. Just trying to scare people. Atleast Freeblades and Mechanicum knights are in here, easy to imagine GW trying to sell them as downloadable supplements.
ironicsilence wrote: I'm a bit surprised by the anger over the codex only having limited rules...would every feel better if they called it a Supplement instead of a codex?
I don't care a jot what they call it. Its the price for the sake of rules for two units that I object to.
The cost for the rules is pretty disgraceful, the fluff does add value but it shouldn't take up the majority of the book. I'm more worried about the potential for this to become a trend in the dilution of content in what we traditionally consider a "Codex" to be.
Just imagine how many ways GW could slice up the Codex: SM if they wanted to milk it. A basic Codex with only the most basic units... Another one for the heavier vehicles and another for the other fancy units. Just trying to scare people.
It's starting to look like that is the approach taken with Codex: Tyranids.
aka_mythos wrote: Just imagine how many ways GW could slice up the Codex: SM if they wanted to milk it. A basic Codex with only the most basic units... Another one for the heavier vehicles and another for the other fancy units. Just trying to scare people. Atleast Freeblades and Mechanicum knights are in here, easy to imagine GW trying to sell them as downloadable supplements.
Just imagine if they tried to sell us a separate book for individual space marine chapters instead of them all being in one book! I imagine it'd mostly be adding some fluff, painting showcases and maybe a couple of unique units and a couple of special rules. With so many rules the same, it'd be a massive rip-off - hopefully we don't see anything like this happening in the future...
There is a 'how-to-assemble' video posted up on the GW website that gives a good feel for the size of the model as the guy assembles and fiddles with the parts.
WOW! This Knight Titan is amazing! I had my hands on one tonight at the local shop, I regret not getting it but my birthday is coming up... Picked up the latest two WD, man I'm digging this new format, two issues with Knights... Sigh, I'm at work so I can't read my Dwarfs...
That Chaos Knight is a really nice build! The pepto-color stinks.
aka_mythos wrote: Just imagine how many ways GW could slice up the Codex: SM if they wanted to milk it. A basic Codex with only the most basic units... Another one for the heavier vehicles and another for the other fancy units. Just trying to scare people. Atleast Freeblades and Mechanicum knights are in here, easy to imagine GW trying to sell them as downloadable supplements.
Just imagine if they tried to sell us a separate book for individual space marine chapters instead of them all being in one book! I imagine it'd mostly be adding some fluff, painting showcases and maybe a couple of unique units and a couple of special rules. With so many rules the same, it'd be a massive rip-off - hopefully we don't see anything like this happening in the future...
The amazing thing to me is how upset Black Templar players are that GW doesn't do MORE of that...
Imperial Knights are NOT titans, titans are titans, imperial knights are imperial knights....It's lLike saying "...look at that rhino landraider!" Derp.
Imperial Knights are NOT titans, titans are titans, imperial knights are imperial knights....It's lLike saying "...look at that rhino landraider!" Derp.
Imperial Knights are NOT titans, titans are titans, imperial knights are imperial knights....It's lLike saying "...look at that rhino landraider!" Derp.
move and you(plural) want to justify that to yourselves and everyone else. "Oh I'm not treating a buddy like crap, I'm just following the rules innit guv, them's the breaks, more than my job's worth etc etc".
