This better?

Picked up three today. Putting one together now. Very impressive model. The wraith knight may be taller but the bulk of this bad boy more than makes up for it!

Ha. I was exactly on target with my height estimate based on the Trygon photo.

Eat it doubters.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:
WOW! This Knight Titan .

Imperial Knights are NOT titans, titans are titans, imperial knights are imperial knights....It's lLike saying "...look at that rhino landraider!" Derp.

i dont want to beat a dead horse or bring up crap from 40 pages ago...but the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

 ironicsilence wrote:
...but the box is labeled Knight Titan ...

No, it isn't. The box says 'Imperial Knight'.

Justyn wrote:
This better?

So it looks around 6.5". I'll measure it myself when I get one because it's hard to know what the parallax error is when viewing a picture

Justyn wrote:
This better?

Thank you!

 insaniak wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
...but the box is labeled Knight Titan ...

No, it isn't. The box says 'Imperial Knight'.

Take a look at the boxes. They do actually say "Imperial Knight Titan".

 insaniak wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
...but the box is labeled Knight Titan ...

No, it isn't. The box says 'Imperial Knight'.

The back of the box does say, quite clearly, "Imperial Knight Titan".

Huh. Hadn't noticed the different text on the back. How odd.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
...but the box is labeled Knight Titan ...

No, it isn't. The box says 'Imperial Knight'.

Take a look at the boxes. They do actually say "Imperial Knight Titan".

And so the plot thickens! Readying up for another 10 page discussion on whether or not they're titans?

 ironicsilence wrote:
i dont want to beat a dead horse or bring up crap from 40 pages ago...but the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

It's a dead horse resurrected everytime someone used the two words together as common sense would dictate. I'm glad you pointed that out so we can now (hopefully) put that incorrect habit of "correcting" fellow posters to rest.

edit: To save fellow posters the trouble of finding it, I'll post the pertinent part of the pic here.

Just when I think GW has done everything they can to make me hate them, they do something like this....and I'm in love again. Slapping "Titan" on there is such a stick in the eye of pedantry that I almost want to buy one of these just as support for this one thing.

 tomjoad wrote:
Slapping "Titan" on there is such a stick in the eye of pedantry that I almost want to buy one of these just as support for this one thing.

Did anyone just hear a whooshing, smashing kind of noise? A bit like the Death Star going "boom" in Star Wars?

That was Platuan4th's head going kabloowie in shock!!!

Also, thank you for the photo's...maybe we can finally put the whole "8 inches versus 6 inches" thing to rest...

And I just finished reading the latest WD - some of the Knight colour schemes are amazing.

Right, so where am I on all this.... Firstly I think its important to say I haven't played a game of Warhammer (any version) for years and I mean years. Lately I have wanted to get back into the hobby but haven't been able to find the right army and/or gaming group to do so, which for me is very important.

I was blown away by how awesome the Knight model is and knew I want to build and paint one or more of these monsters. Then the rules became apparent and in all honesty I'm very disappointed, It doesn't seem to give me much choice, and I like choice! The Knight army equation is - Game Points Total divided by 375 = Army. There is no options, I can get away just about with having one model, but I want options, things to consider - I want 4 choices of arm weapon per arm... I want the option of double cannons or double chainsaws.... or power fists.... or something, but I don't, I want upgrades - different heads do stuff.... banners?.....

I really don't understand the reasoning behind the codex unless they are only really meant to be taken as allies.

This all said I still go back to my first point, I don't play often and that doesn't look like changing too soon, but I'm still really looking forward to putting together and painting an awesome model, but that is all.

shade1313 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
...but the box is labeled Knight Titan ...

No, it isn't. The box says 'Imperial Knight'.

The back of the box does say, quite clearly, "Imperial Knight Titan".

..It's like they put "Knight" on the front of the box, and "Knight Titan" on the back of the box, just to screw with you guys.

Picked mine up, started converting them to Khorne but need to order some more bits.

So much win above... I'm also aiming for two hounds and a reaver plus some knight titans.

 tyrannosaurus wrote:
So much win above... I'm also aiming for two hounds and a reaver plus some knight titans.

Do it! Just budget for a lot of building and painting time for the Titans. Plan is to get a small Dark Mechanicum force to go with this, around 3/4k, as a support force now that FW are doing the rules and models.

I love the kit, took about three hours to build all four, another hour for the conversion work so far. I've an hour of battle damage and additional conversion work to go before they go to my friend to paint in a black to red fade to match the style of the Titans.

Only thing I didn't like about the kit was the legs, its easy to remove the lugs to change the angle but the foot plate is at a fixed angle. To cap it off the actual leg is a single piece, going to be tough if you want to chop it to change the angle of the knee.

You can see that they have planned the kit well for future conversion kits, all the imperium branded bits are separate with standard mounting points and there is a top hatch you could replace with a carapace weapon.

Looky Likey wrote:
Picked mine up, started converting them to Khorne but need to order some more bits.

You seem to be prepared for 40K 7th edition quite well! I salute you! Big time D slapper!

To everyone else whining how Chaos might not have access to these Knights: I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but you can actually play Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard etc, with using Chaos models. Meaning, everything WYSIWYG and codex legal but actual conversions to the traitor side. In 5th edition the SW codex built much stronger Chaos armies than the actual Chaos codex anyway. Blood Angels represent Khorne very well. Mephiston is basically a Daemon Prince. Build a large enough SM/IG or Chaos/Traitor IG collection and you can pretty much use half the codices in the game to build armies.

shade1313 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
...but the box is labeled Knight Titan ...

No, it isn't. The box says 'Imperial Knight'.

The back of the box does say, quite clearly, "Imperial Knight Titan".

Hmmm .... someone will have to change his sig then

Justyn wrote:
This better?

It is!

And clearly 6" it is!

The thing is barely 6.5" on its base!

Done!

Now as far as this "Titan" thing goes...

Oh boy...

Justyn wrote:
Perhaps they built that for their 'traitor' guard.


And this

If that was your image, can we get it side by side with a Dreadnought if possible?

1. Knights are and always were a form of Titan. This is not a retcon.

Dreadnaughts and Sentinels are not forms of Titan. Knight suits have a throne in which the knight sits, he is imprinted upon it during a vigil (old fluff) and it is controlled with MIU links. The Knight was introduced because of the surge in popularity of Battletech at the time and are one man Mech sized Titans. The Knight pilot, also a knight of himself is synonymous with a Princeps.

2. Disappointed about the new Codex. After all is said and done they didn't even wait to add other types of knight in the book, thus requiring .pdf supplements and add ons.
I have ordered my Knight online, thanks to the thread for the heads up of TotalWargames.com 30% discount offer. But I am not buying the book. If all the codes is going to offer are two units then I will write down what I need to know on a piece of paper and look at the store copy to pick a House to paint my knight up in.
Also no one has mentioned peasants in Sentinels which is a missed opportunity.

So even when GW get them choice of model to release exactly right, they still feth it up.

 Therion wrote:
I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but you can actually play Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard etc, with using Chaos models.

Great. Not everyone likes to do that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I don't know how many times it needs to be repeated, but you can actually play Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Imperial Guard etc, with using Chaos models.

Great. Not everyone likes to do that.

I didn't choose to play CSM to put some spikes on SWs and call it day. I'd rather have my actual faction given some love.

Anyone could post what's really in the custom Ally Chart of the IKs?

My guess is that Chaos knights are gonna be a FW thing. That's a mixed bag of sorts since on one hand that means the options are likely to be more interesting and varied from the imperial versions, but pricey to play and with the whole stigma of being FW models. If FW does the Chaos Knights you get add-ons like the god specific add-on bits... Or bits like the decimator for undivided... GW would have probably just thrown the same stupid chaos vehicle accessory sprue in and called it a day.

 warboss wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
i dont want to beat a dead horse or bring up crap from 40 pages ago...but the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

It's a dead horse resurrected everytime someone used the two words together as common sense would dictate. I'm glad you pointed that out so we can now (hopefully) put that incorrect habit of "correcting" fellow posters to rest.

edit: To save fellow posters the trouble of finding it, I'll post the pertinent part of the pic here.

Finally! That's one debate settled, at least regarding GW's current stance.

Knight Titan! Knight Titan! Mwuahahaahhaaha

Saw these today at GW lakeside and it is as nice as I had've hoped. I won't get one for six months (gotta start and finish me dwarves first!) but this is deffo one that will be mine.

I also got I thumb through their copy of the IK Companion. This really is a very nice book. As others have noted its purely a source book but the content presented is very nice, there's lots of plates of house knights and there looks to be plenty of fluff included. If you want a comparison for quality then It's a FW imperial Armour book in essence (sans rules). It falls down with the price but I a am considering this, particularly if I get the Mrs to buy it for me as a birthday present.

 RiTides wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
i dont want to beat a dead horse or bring up crap from 40 pages ago...but the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

It's a dead horse resurrected everytime someone used the two words together as common sense would dictate. I'm glad you pointed that out so we can now (hopefully) put that incorrect habit of "correcting" fellow posters to rest.

edit: To save fellow posters the trouble of finding it, I'll post the pertinent part of the pic here.

Finally! That's one debate settled, at least regarding GW's current stance.

Knight Titan! Knight Titan! Mwuahahaahhaaha

Right, that's their new stance.

Up until this point, everyone saying that was incorrect.

GW changes things all the time.

Bravo.

/slowclap

I just can't believe that they seem to be selling an entire codex for one, single unit...
GW is insane, but this insane?
The Knight is an awesome thing, but still, an entire codex?

GWs not insane. We're all the insane ones for buying it.

 aka_mythos wrote:
GWs not insane. We're all the insane ones for buying it.

Amen!

 aka_mythos wrote:
GWs not insane. We're all the insane ones for buying it.

I like the model and I'm glad they're coming out with it for my fellow gamers but I personally have no interest in buying it for reason in addition to the moderately inflated price. I'd trade for the physical model but there is no way I'd pay that much or even trade for a few pages of rules for one unit. I have enough reservations about shelling out for the "meatier" codex supplements like the farsight one that has probably double or triple the crunch alone something with even less.

 ironicsilence wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:
WOW! This Knight Titan .

Imperial Knights are NOT titans, titans are titans, imperial knights are imperial knights....It's lLike saying "...look at that rhino landraider!" Derp.

the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

Apologies then. I didn't realize GW changed it, and wasn't aware of the box... Thanks.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:
WOW! This Knight Titan .

Imperial Knights are NOT titans, titans are titans, imperial knights are imperial knights....It's lLike saying "...look at that rhino landraider!" Derp.

the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

Apologies then. I didn't realize GW changed it, and wasn't aware of the box... Thanks.

They haven't.

This is maybe a mistake, but more likely somewhere, deep in the bowels of Lenton, somebody still hasn't lost their sense of humour. They didn't once refer to it as a Knight Titan in the launch issue of WD, they do not refer to it as such on the description on the web (Knight suit seems the favoured term) nor do they refer to it as such on the front of the box.

This is the one sole reference to it being a Knight Titan anywhere in all of the stuff they have put out over the last few weeks, yet strangely seems to be regarded as proof that this is how it is and always was?

Nah, GW be trolling.

Besides, whether you're of the opinion it is a Titan type or not, calling it as such is redundant, I don't see anyone calling Land Raiders "Land Raider Tanks" and that well known and popular unit "Land Speeder Skimmers" get talked about all the time, right?

Also, if we are going to adopt this new line from our GW overlords, could the committee please rule, when talking about variants, whether the preferred term is Knight Paladin Titan, or Knight Titan Paladin?

Wouldn't want to goof again!

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 Kelly502 wrote:
WOW! This Knight Titan .

Imperial Knights are NOT titans, titans are titans, imperial knights are imperial knights....It's lLike saying "...look at that rhino landraider!" Derp.

the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

Apologies then. I didn't realize GW changed it, and wasn't aware of the box... Thanks.

There is nothing to apologize for. People on dakka took it upon themselves for years to "correct" fellow posters who used common sense and called Knights titans just like every other superheavy Imperial walker. To my knowledge, GW never excluded knights from the category of titans and this desire to correct was based on a lack of knowledge rather than any actual knowledge. Now, I'm sure someone out there is itching to type that GW also did not say that Knights weren't watermelons either or something equally ridiculous but I most reasonable people can agree that Knights and their larger cousins share alot more history (both fluff and crunch over various games) than that.

Out of curiosity, is most of the interesting reading fluff on the wiki page new from the codex or is it from earlier Epic/Titan games?

edit: Looks like the question is mostly answered further down but they've obviously updated the article with new pics so I'd be curious to see if new fluff made it in as well.

"The history of the Knight war machines as presented above is canon culled from the game Titan Legions"

http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Knight

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I just can't believe that they seem to be selling an entire codex for one, single unit...
GW is insane, but this insane?
The Knight is an awesome thing, but still, an entire codex?

Well, why not? This isn't exactly a new thing for GW, they've been testing it for awhile. Look at the digital editions rules released thus far. Clearly, enough people are willing to pay money for a codex that is mostly a copy/paste from an existing codex, as well as rules for single models, or even a single squad.. People are even willing to pay for rules for a single mission.

Warboss is (was) wrong but now might be right!

I'm ok either way as I'm checked out if the 40k hotel until 7th - and maybe not even then!

 Orlanth wrote:
TotalWargames.com 30% discount offer

I recommend you cancel now and order somewhere else, the delayed shipping isn't worth the discount imo (ordered once and never again)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=total+wargamer&rlz=1C1CHMO_enGB574GB574&oq=total+wargamer&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i65l2j69i60j0l2.2360j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I just can't believe that they seem to be selling an entire codex for one, single unit...
GW is insane, but this insane?
The Knight is an awesome thing, but still, an entire codex?

Their not! It's 2!

From gw

"Codex: Imperial KnightsIn 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."

Unless there's something surprising inside the Codex, there's not a huge reason to buy it, is there? I have the rules for the actually model for $4 from the White Dwarf. So the Codex will add the warlord traits and the allies matrix? Sure, to use Knights as a Primary you'll need that, I suppose, but to toss in one or two as an ally, all I'll need from the book is to know what level of ally it is with my army, and it's easy enough to know that without pay $40.

 tomjoad wrote:
Unless there's something surprising inside the Codex, there's not a huge reason to buy it, is there? I have the rules for the actually model for $4 from the White Dwarf. So the Codex will add the warlord traits and the allies matrix? Sure, to use Knights as a Primary you'll need that, I suppose, but to toss in one or two as an ally, all I'll need from the book is to know what level of ally it is with my army, and it's easy enough to know that without pay $40.

You don't ever need to buy any GW books if you don't want to. All the relevant rules of any codex can be summarised on 4 pages -- Rules which you can either get from a real friend of yours or an anonymous file sharing friend on the internet. I believe most people, including me, buy army books because they look and feel nice, not because they're an absolute necessity for gaming.

 Therion wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:
Unless there's something surprising inside the Codex, there's not a huge reason to buy it, is there? I have the rules for the actually model for $4 from the White Dwarf. So the Codex will add the warlord traits and the allies matrix? Sure, to use Knights as a Primary you'll need that, I suppose, but to toss in one or two as an ally, all I'll need from the book is to know what level of ally it is with my army, and it's easy enough to know that without pay $40.

You don't ever need to buy any GW books if you don't want to. All the relevant rules of any codex can be summarised on 4 pages -- Rules which you can either get from a real friend of yours or an anonymous file sharing friend on the internet. I believe most people, including me, buy army books because they look and feel nice, not because they're an absolute necessity for gaming.

Anybody complaining about the price for a two model codex cannot also use this line of thought. The two positions are directly opposed to one another. If you love the feel of paper this much, which is reasonable and valid, then you have already determined that you don't mind paying up. If you are upset about paying up, surely the value you place on the physical sensation of "book" is far lower than the value you place on a pair of twenties.

I am assuming that a knight army can take allies like imperial guard. If so, how about these instead of Cadians:



They're cheaper too!

 tomjoad wrote:


Anybody complaining about the price for a two model codex cannot also use this line of thought. The two positions are directly opposed to one another. If you love the feel of paper this much, which is reasonable and valid, then you have already determined that you don't mind paying up. If you are upset about paying up, surely the value you place on the physical sensation of "book" is far lower than the value you place on a pair of twenties.

It's not the paper, it's the background

Good "balanced" and "crunchy" games are a dime a dozen. I can go to a nearby pound shop and pick up plastic models the size of the Knight no problem.

The only thing that justifies the price is GW's background and lore, and the less crunch there is in a Codex, the more room there is for lore.

 tomjoad wrote:
Unless there's something surprising inside the Codex, there's not a huge reason to buy it, is there? I have the rules for the actually model for $4 from the White Dwarf. So the Codex will add the warlord traits and the allies matrix? Sure, to use Knights as a Primary you'll need that, I suppose, but to toss in one or two as an ally, all I'll need from the book is to know what level of ally it is with my army, and it's easy enough to know that without pay $40.

Yeah, I'm not buying anything until the Codex comes out and I'll flip through it at my local GW and see if there's anything in it worth paying to get. Otherwise I'll just stick to the WD rules.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 tomjoad wrote:


Anybody complaining about the price for a two model codex cannot also use this line of thought. The two positions are directly opposed to one another. If you love the feel of paper this much, which is reasonable and valid, then you have already determined that you don't mind paying up. If you are upset about paying up, surely the value you place on the physical sensation of "book" is far lower than the value you place on a pair of twenties.

It's not the paper, it's the background

Good "balanced" and "crunchy" games are a dime a dozen. I can go to a nearby pound shop and pick up plastic models the size of the Knight no problem.

The only thing that justifies the price is GW's background and lore, and the less crunch there is in a Codex, the more room there is for lore.

OK, that's your opinion. My opinion, again, is that whatever small amount of fluff is added through the codex is worth considerably less than the price of the codex. Between the WD's and Lexicanum and the 90+ pages here of debating the minutia of what a "Knight" is and what a "Titan" is, I suspect I've got as much of the fluff as I'll ever want for these guys.

But again, if the fluff is worth that much to you, then I have no truck with that, because you definitionally cannot complain about the price of the book; you've just stated plainly that it is worth it to you to pay for it. My comments are meant for people who do not want to pay $40, who feel that this product isn't worth that much money. THOSE people who are numerous and who I am amongst, have a valid and legal avenue to not buy the codex AND to use the Knights as an ally, which is what I wanted to point out.

 Zweischneid wrote:
...the less crunch there is in a Codex, the more room there is for lore.

Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns? Is a 1.6% increase in lore worth a 25% decrease in rules? In a rulebook?

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
...the less crunch there is in a Codex, the more room there is for lore.

Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns? Is a 1.6% increase in lore worth a 25% decrease in rules? In a rulebook?

It's just Saturday, don't sweat it.

 Orlanth wrote:
I have ordered my Knight online, thanks to the thread for the heads up of TotalWargames.com 30% discount offer.

While waiting for your Knight, have fun reading this thread about the company you ordered from:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/472563.page

Some nice looking chaos conversion showing up (even if they don't look as if they are game legal yet)



from Bandua Wargames on facebook using a Knight & bits of the fantasy warshrine

 Alpharius wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

 warboss wrote:

 ironicsilence wrote:
i dont want to beat a dead horse or bring up crap from 40 pages ago...but the box is labeled Knight Titan so GW has changed the fluff...

It's a dead horse resurrected everytime someone used the two words together as common sense would dictate. I'm glad you pointed that out so we can now (hopefully) put that incorrect habit of "correcting" fellow posters to rest.

edit: To save fellow posters the trouble of finding it, I'll post the pertinent part of the pic here.

Finally! That's one debate settled, at least regarding GW's current stance.

Knight Titan! Knight Titan! Mwuahahaahhaaha

Right, that's their new stance.

Up until this point, everyone saying that was incorrect.

GW changes things all the time.

Bravo.

/slowclap

This is being misread.

The unit is called an "Imperial Knight" in the codex.

It is also called "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box because the name "Imperial Knight" is too generic for enforceable IP copyright.

in either case it is and always was a form of Titan, similar technology, smaller package. This has been the case right from the White Dwarf where they were first introduced.
Many things have changed, there is no shock lance, the ion shield used to cover the frant and left arcs but could never be redirected and the secondary weapons were multi lasers.

At least they kept in the knight worlds concepts.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Some nice looking chaos conversion showing up (even if they don't look as if they are game legal yet)

Spoiler:

from Bandua Wargames on facebook using a Knight & bits of the fantasy warshrine

Now that is cool in a completely over the top way.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
I have ordered my Knight online, thanks to the thread for the heads up of TotalWargames.com 30% discount offer.

While waiting for your Knight, have fun reading this thread about the company you ordered from:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/472563.page

Thanks for the heads up.
So long as it gets here I am content with slow delivery and poor communications. I can press any grievances with my bank if the product doesn't turn up.
Budget is the priority issue so I want my toys cheaper not sooner. If Total Wargames delivers I will use them as my priority supplier, but I thank you for the link anyway and will be careful to read all of it.

JWBS wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
TotalWargames.com 30% discount offer

I recommend you cancel now and order somewhere else, the delayed shipping isn't worth the discount imo (ordered once and never again)

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=total+wargamer&rlz=1C1CHMO_enGB574GB574&oq=total+wargamer&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i65l2j69i60j0l2.2360j0j4&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Hmm. The order was placed I can cancel now under UK distance selling laws but I need this sale to work. I am not the type to have a unit ready and painted in a few days, like I assume many I have several armies still unpainted. If the knight gets delayed by warpstorms on its perilous journey here so be it.

I am far more worried about Royal Mail than the companies I buy from.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
...the less crunch there is in a Codex, the more room there is for lore.

Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns? Is a 1.6% increase in lore worth a 25% decrease in rules? In a rulebook?

That is assuming the more rules would equal a better/tighter/smoother game, which I would dispute. A 25% decrease in rules is (hopefully) a sign of improved quality of rules. The less rules are needed, the better it is for everyone.

The added space for lore is just the cherry on top.

 Orlanth wrote:
This is being misread.

The unit is called an "Imperial Knight" in the codex.

It is also called "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box because the name "Imperial Knight" is too generic for enforceable IP copyright.

If "Imperial Knight" is the correct name, then everyone can use the correct name. Being the only company to use the wrong name is an incredibly stupid idea.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
Some nice looking chaos conversion showing up (even if they don't look as if they are game legal yet)



from Bandua Wargames on facebook using a Knight & bits of the fantasy warshrine

I just want to go back to this. For me, this is what 40k is about.

I think there are simply different uses of the word "Titan" in 40K.

Are Imperial Knights "Titans" in the sense of "Imperial Warmachines build and operated by the Imperial Collegia Titanica"?: No. they are not.

Are Imperial Knights "Titans" in the sense that they are giant stompy things on the battlefield, along with Eldar "Titans" or Ork Stompas or even oversized Tyranid stuff, etc...? They probably are.

[edit]

Also this chaos thing running around

 Zweischneid wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
...the less crunch there is in a Codex, the more room there is for lore.

Are you familiar with the concept of diminishing returns? Is a 1.6% increase in lore worth a 25% decrease in rules? In a rulebook?

That is assuming the more rules would equal a better/tighter/smoother game, which I would dispute.

You would dispute that having more than 1 unit in an army's codex would be better?

I was always under the idea that "Knight" was a designation for Titan size/type, like "Warhound" or "Reaver."

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You would dispute that having more than 1 unit in an army's codex would be better?

I would argue that a lot of the current Codexes out there would be a lot better if they had a lot fewer units in them.

Is "one" the magic number? I don't know. I'll give it a try, before I pass judgement. It certainly feels a lot better than the convoluted mess of ... say ... the Tyranid Codex.

Either way, I would dispute that more rules (!) in a book are a good thing. Which is something other than more units. I am sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear enough.

 Accolade wrote:
I was always under the idea that "Knight" was a designation for Titan size/type, like "Warhound" or "Reaver."

They also have void shields, that's the defining feature of a mechanicum titan but whatever not getting a semantics argument for the 400th time about this. Granted, its pretty hilarious that Knights have BETTER void shields than titans. Who the hell cares about an AV12 one use shield when you got a 4++ ??

 Zweischneid wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
You would dispute that having more than 1 unit in an army's codex would be better?

I would argue that a lot of the current Codexes out there would be a lot better if they had a lot fewer units in them.

Is "one" the magic number? I don't know. I'll give it a try, before I pass judgement. It certainly feels a lot better than the convoluted mess of ... say ... the Tyranid Codex.

Except the problem with the Tyranid codex isn't too many units, it's internal imbalance. FWIW, the 'nid codex has 29 units in not counting uniques (like OOE or the red terror).

Either way, I would dispute that more rules (!) in a book are a good thing. Which is something other than more units. I am sorry if I didn't make that distinction clear enough.

In the context of 40k as a whole I think many people would argue that it needs less convolution in it's rules. However we are discussing a codex, the implication of "more rules" in the context of a codex typically means people want more units and more options for those units.

They had some sort of ion shields instead according to the wiki article I linked earlier in the thread.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
However we are discussing a codex, the implication of "more rules" in the context of a codex typically means people want more units and more options for those units.

Fair enough. Not the implication I read. Many of the Codex Supplement discussions have similarly revolved around "not enough" (or "too many"?), rules, including things like Warlord Traits, unique items, FOC-swaps, Psychic Powers, etc... The Farsight Supplement had far too many rules for my taste. The Iyanden Supplement was managing the fluff-crunch-balance a bit better IMO. But they are not "Codex" in the strictest sense I suppose.

But if "more rules" literally means "more units" to you, than yes, I'd agree with you (to an extend... as there is such a thing as diminishing returns, over-saturation,etc..).

 Kirasu wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I was always under the idea that "Knight" was a designation for Titan size/type, like "Warhound" or "Reaver."

They also have void shields, that's the defining feature of a mechanicum titan but whatever not getting a semantics argument for the 400th time about this. Granted, its pretty hilarious that Knights have BETTER void shields than titans. Who the hell cares about an AV12 one use shield when you got a 4++ ??

They're Ion Shields, and they're not "better" than Titans' Void Shields(unless Void Shields have changed significantly since last I had read them).

They cover a quarter of the model and the Knight player "sets" the shield before the enemy's Shooting Phase and before any shooting attacks are carried out.

The quarters are front, left, right, or rear and the Ion Shield's 4+ Invulnerable save cannot be used against close combat attacks.

A Size comparison pic between the 28mm DFG Crusader and the GW Knight. This was posted over on the Dream-Forge Games Artists Retreat Facebook page by Mark Addams.
Crusader is on a slightly elevated base, so add maybe half inch to the Knight.

ski2060 wrote:
Crusader is on a slightly elevated base, so add maybe half inch to the Knight.

I don't think that's necessary as the Knight is on an XBox game case which appears to be the same size as the Leviathan's built up base.

Think the Crusader would fit on the Knight base? Looks like it should be ok-ish.

On a related note, where can you get seperate Knight bases....

 Orlanth wrote:
The unit is called an "Imperial Knight" in the codex.

It is also called "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box because the name "Imperial Knight" is too generic for enforceable IP copyright.

Does that mean, anyone can now produce an "Imperial Knight", as long as they don't print "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box?
Does that also mean, that for the first time, the background was (re)written by the GW legal team, that proved so successfull in the Chapterhouse lawsuit?

BTW where is Platuan4th?

 Kroothawk wrote:

Does that mean, anyone can now produce an "Imperial Knight", as long as they don't print "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box?
Does that also mean, that for the first time, the background was (re)written by the GW legal team, that proved so successfull in the Chapterhouse lawsuit?

Does possibly having case law on your side mean anything in terms of preventing C&D letters and costly legal battles that you can't afford? Unless you've got probono defense already lined up from a top firm, I don't think it means anything. YMMV.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
I was always under the idea that "Knight" was a designation for Titan size/type, like "Warhound" or "Reaver."

They also have void shields, that's the defining feature of a mechanicum titan but whatever not getting a semantics argument for the 400th time about this. Granted, its pretty hilarious that Knights have BETTER void shields than titans. Who the hell cares about an AV12 one use shield when you got a 4++ ??

They're Ion Shields, and they're not "better" than Titans' Void Shields(unless Void Shields have changed significantly since last I had read them).

They cover a quarter of the model and the Knight player "sets" the shield before the enemy's Shooting Phase and before any shooting attacks are carried out.

The quarters are front, left, right, or rear and the Ion Shield's 4+ Invulnerable save cannot be used against close combat attacks.

If you play a lot of apoc then YES the Ion shield is vastly superior to void shields. The further distance you are from the enemy the larger your front arc is. I'd take a direction 4++ over 1-3 void shields any day of the week. Void shields also don't work in CC so that point of moot, unsure why you included it. It's flat out better in almost all relevant circumstances.

 bubber wrote:
I am assuming that a knight army can take allies like imperial guard. If so, how about these instead of Cadians:

They're cheaper too!

Dave Taylor did a great IG army back in the day using the Bretonnian Men-at-Arms kits. Will need access to IG arms, but straight forward for basic conversions.

Those are epic!

Isn't that Our Dave Taylor? he is a member of Dakka

Back on topic Imperial Knights are cool I want 5 or 6 of them

 sonofruss wrote:
Isn't that Our Dave Taylor? he is a member of Dakka

Back on topic Imperial Knights are cool I want 5 or 6 of them

Someone at my FLGS bought 7 of them the other day...

I wish GW didn't feth over my FLGS and had them available today as promised, instead of just for their stores, the curs.

 BrookM wrote:
I wish GW didn't feth over my FLGS and had them available today as promised, instead of just for their stores, the curs.

I don't think GW stores had that many either. My local GW only had two left come 1030.

One of the staff mentioned something about a shipment to the USA being held up/ going astray meaning others had to be diverted to cover orders resulting in everyone being spread thinly. Add salt according to taste of course....

My local shop had shipment issues, so only a few knights avail.

Both the US and UK sites have a one to two week delay on dispatch. They wouldn't feth themselves over if they weren't genuinely thin on the ground, for whatever reason.

 azreal13 wrote:
Both the US and UK sites have a one to two week delay on dispatch. They wouldn't feth themselves over if they weren't genuinely thin on the ground, for whatever reason.

Though, I feel they are their own worst enemy at times.

 sonofruss wrote:
Isn't that Our Dave Taylor? he is a member of Dakka

Back on topic Imperial Knights are cool I want 5 or 6 of them

Yup. Sadly not much on them over on his blog. A couple pics, but not much.

3000 units meant for the North American market supposedly got stranded during transit due to weather. GW apparently pulled 1500 meant for UK/Europe and air shipped them to the US. That is explaining the shortages.

Those monsters..

i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

 bubber wrote:
Those are epic!

no they look 28mm to me.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

Same here.

First0f0ne wrote:

 bubber wrote:
Those are epic!

no they look 28mm to me.








Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

Same here.

I have a feeling it'll happen very soon.

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

i havent put mine together yet but the 15mm box says the model measures 4.5 inches tall

 ironicsilence wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

i havent put mine together yet but the 15mm box says the model measures 4.5 inches tall

Or an imperial knight next to warmachines galleon or conquest. The price comparison has already been made, i think they have a really close fit in size.

 Mr. Grey wrote:

 sonofruss wrote:
Isn't that Our Dave Taylor? he is a member of Dakka

Back on topic Imperial Knights are cool I want 5 or 6 of them

Someone at my FLGS bought 7 of them the other day...

That would be me
Few for me...few to paint and sell
David was quite happy hehehe

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

Thanks for reposting my picture next to 'Tiny' - some more pictures follow below

Think the Crusader would fit on the Knight base? Looks like it should be ok-ish.

Yes, but... the Dreamforge base is a solid mass - very sturdy, plenty of weight etc. The knight base isn't very strong at all, and has a lot of give, so whilst the Crusader isn't exactly heavy it would sag under the weight without reinforcement. Having said that, theres not a lot of spare on the base to really pose him so.. hmm.







The knight feels, in all honesty, like a wasted opportunity. If the knight had posable legs (which would have taken one more sprue at most), then maybe I'd say its a good kit. As it is, its three sprues for quite a lot of money and to convert the legs is going to take a hell of a lot of effort. Its not a quick job by any means.

The Leviathan on the other hand... well... I can do this without blue tac, and have it perfectly balanced. It also works with the arms and armor plates on.

 BrookM wrote:
I wish GW didn't feth over my FLGS and had them available today as promised, instead of just for their stores, the curs.

Even the local GW store didn't get all they pre-ordered in on schedule.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

This is why i want to see a pic. My nemesis i just built, which is a bit taller then standard dreadknight is about 4.75 inces tall from its toes to the top of its defiler head. You can't trust a measurement done like this and the pose and shape of the model is also very important for looking at perceived space. Two degrees of seperation is one degree to far when comparing the size of A to B.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This is being misread.

The unit is called an "Imperial Knight" in the codex.

It is also called "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box because the name "Imperial Knight" is too generic for enforceable IP copyright.

If "Imperial Knight" is the correct name, then everyone can use the correct name. Being the only company to use the wrong name is an incredibly stupid idea.

Have you check the legal IP status on the wording of Tyranid in their trademark claims, it's included twice as Tyrannid also; GW sometimes likes to make sure. GW has a doctrine of rigorously attempting to defend its IP, however Imperial Knight has so many connotations I think the double name gives GW something to claim as theirs. Otherwise who are/were the Imperial Knights? Samurai, the Royal Victorian Order, any ritter of the Holy Roman Empire?

Imperial Knight Titan or Knight Titan can be more easily defended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The unit is called an "Imperial Knight" in the codex.
It is also called "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box because the name "Imperial Knight" is too generic for enforceable IP copyright.

Does that mean, anyone can now produce an "Imperial Knight", as long as they don't print "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box?

Yes anyone can produce an Imperial Knight so long as they can justify the name and GW can do nothing about it. So if its a 'knight', either on horseback or otherwise and its part of an empire then the name can be used. You could also have a vehicle called a 'knight', from an Imperial faction, again.
If the name is generic Gw can do nothing about it.

So for example you can invent your own fantasy game, you cant call it Warhammer, but you can add warhammers to it, or take a vehicle and call that a Warhammer and so on.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Does that also mean, that for the first time, the background was (re)written by the GW legal team, that proved so successfull in the Chapterhouse lawsuit?

Chapterhouse has little or nothing to do with it. GW has long realised, for at least 15 years that a lot of its IP was indefensible. If you have an old old copy of the Sisters of Battle Codex you will see examples of this. Games Workshop in their wisdom attempted to trade names like Missionary and Preacher. I think the church got there first. Sisters Repentia they can claim as their own, and Pentitent Engines are ok.

You might have noticed GW is also heading away from generic unit names for a long time now. Sometimes that was to ensure that popular units are not named the same, so various Dreadnaughts don't co-exist as items because the Eldar Dreadnaught was renamed Wraithlord and the ork dreadnaught was renamed the Deff Dread. Other things were renamed more recently to create IP opportunities, this is especially true for Warhammer fantasy which is far harder to defend as elves and orcs in a fantasy setting dont belong to anyone. Dark Elf spearmen are too generic, anyone can make them and sell them Dreadspears are propriatory.

GW are ignorant of many things, but they know IP law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silent25 wrote:

 bubber wrote:
I am assuming that a knight army can take allies like imperial guard. If so, how about these instead of Cadians:

They're cheaper too!

Dave Taylor did a great IG army back in the day using the Bretonnian Men-at-Arms kits. Will need access to IG arms, but straight forward for basic conversions.

This is what I have been thinking of doing, except that I would be deploying as many sentinels as possible and all the troops would have livery more in keeping with Bretonnians, quartered tunics etc. While 'allies' I would use therm specifically and exclusively with the knights are a peasant militia raised from the knights world.

Even considered giving the sergeants halberds with integral laspistols, it's just a ccw and laspistol right?

Nicer to see the Bret kits are viable, those look excellent as mainstram guard.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

The Knight is not 6 3/4" tall...

REQUEST.

Can one or more of the Dakka Knight owners take a closer look at the practicality of magnetising the weapons please.

 Orlanth wrote:
REQUEST.

Can one or more of the Dakka Knight owners take a closer look at the practicality of magnetising the weapons please.

It's going to be...interesting.

So the parts layout is like this:
The "arm" for the weapons are a single part(built of components 97, 95, 20, 21[the arm 'assembly'] and then parts 22+23 are the "box" that you see the weapons proper attached to) that are shared between each build. The weapons are then built around the "box" for the arms, with the rest of it being detailing.

If you want to skimp a bit and not detail the Thermal Cannon I guess you might be able to get away with it. I'm taking it very very slowly with mine right now and planning out subassemblies, etc before starting building anything.

 Alpharius wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

The Knight is not 6 3/4" tall...

6.5" at top of model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
REQUEST.

Can one or more of the Dakka Knight owners take a closer look at the practicality of magnetising the weapons please.

I'm Magnetizing behind the shields....

Lol, I am not going to build mine for awhile. It is my reward for getting my adepticon army ready(o god that is one month away)

So its going to be super hectic enough as it is. I cant wait to see when chaos rules come out. I want to make a death guard one.

Also waiting for a variety of tutorials that are going to be coming out soon ish for magnetizing and the like. So excited.

Got to check out the Imp Knight today. The local GW store sold out of their last one just as I walked in to the store and the shop down the road selling it for $140AUD (vs $155) had 1 left in stock. I won't be buying one until I finish the models I have on hand though.

It does look a lot better in person I think.

I want to do lights in mine like seen in the new wd!

I just can't get over a codex being released with two units that are virtually identical.

Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Shame really. Won't be spending money on such limited rules content, especially considering part of that rules content is a random table that can make your Knight randomly better or worse. Yay game design!

Looks good to magnetize.

Behind the shields is one thing but also the ammo mounts on the side would benefit from snipping the hoses off and be able to swap from fuel drums to ammo hopper.

They were a little evil in making only enough lifting lugs on the front of the shields for one set. I am going to use some formed card with a drilled hole in each which should work.

Looks like a similar amount of tinkering as with the Grey Knight big robot.

I like how it goes together for painting: Just leave off all the armor plates and paint the big skeleton in one big go.

I think also a couple big magnets in the torso-twist area would be good for transporting or at least for posing. The glued on sprue idea in WD is fine if you do not want to detach the upper body.

I hate to say but I think I LIKE this model.
This is far superior in look than the Khorn mower.
Detail-wise it is less but it just looks better engineered.
Plus I loved epic and it looks right alongside the Shadowsword or Baneblade.

Will definitely not spend the $25 on the separate transfer sheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I just can't get over a codex being released with two units that are virtually identical.
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.
Shame really. Won't be spending money on such limited rules content, especially considering part of that rules content is a random table that can make your Knight randomly better or worse. Yay game design!

Yes, $50 and 60 pages for what is really 2 models.
This is really strange even for GW.
I really do not want the codex for a couple lines of information.
I do not need the fluff spelled out to me, I suspect my imagination is better.

So.. for those dakkites more knowledgeable about the recent expansions... would the following be legal in some combo in a 2000pt everything 40k (but not labelled apoc) goes tourney or FLGS setting?

Primary Detachment: 3-6 scoring knights
Allies: 2 units of Castellax Automata and a Tech Priest HQ
Lord of War: Ferrus Manus

The units can be flip flopped obviously (like the Ad Mech becomming the primary and 3 knights as allies or somesuch) if that helps.

 Talizvar wrote:
They were a little evil in making only enough lifting lugs on the front of the shields for one set. I am going to use some formed card with a drilled hole in each which should work.

That's your takeaway?

And there is enough lugs. Each shield uses 2 lugs, and the sprue has 4.

well here is one way to make it larger this is the Australia QLD townsville GW

lol wow that's awesome

Now we just need the one with the whole Westminster Abbey on top.

Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

 Blacksails wrote:
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Fantastic concept/terrible execution is kind GW's modus operandi.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

Yes, the mounting point is identical, however the actual bit that holds the shield is very different from the stubber, you could convert it without that much trouble to hold another gun but it would look different from the other side.

Had a flick through the companion. It's a lot of background and pictures of the different colour schemes for all the different houses and freeblades.

It kind of amazes me they've only done 1 model. I didn't see anything else in the companion, so I assume there will be nothing else.

But they put a lot of effort in to just 1 model kit which just amounts to a weapon swap (which is actually less than most GW dual kits, many of which let you create more unique critters than a mere weapon swap).

Flicking through the companion I just couldn't help but think "these are nice pictures, lots of background, but it would be so much better if there were a few knight variants in the pictures instead of just the same one over and over".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

 Blacksails wrote:
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Fantastic concept/terrible execution is kind GW's modus operandi.

The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

So instead of releasing a whole codex for one model... just add them into Codex: Imperial Guard as part of the Guard army, or as allies to anyone Guard can ally with? And then release a dataslate with the list as it currently stands in the Codex for taking an army just of Knights...

And then, when they have the budget to add a new sprue with the other weapons and a couple new heads, they release a codex for the Knight army...

Would have achieved exactly the same as they have now (because I can't see sales of the Knight codex in its current form being huge), and would have kept everyone much happier about the whole situation.

 insaniak wrote:

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

So instead of releasing a whole codex for one model... just add them into Codex: Imperial Guard as part of the Guard army, or as allies to anyone Guard can ally with? And then release a dataslate with the list as it currently stands in the Codex for taking an army just of Knights...

We don't know that they aren't in the IG book, do we? I mean, it's kind of unlikely, but it's not impossible

 notprop wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

 Blacksails wrote:
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Fantastic concept/terrible execution is kind GW's modus operandi.

The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

Which is why GW really need to do away with the codex system altogether and move into the 21st century. Living rulebooks is where it's at these days, no waiting years for an update, no restricting yourself because X army is getting updated but there is no model for Y unit yet, and not even half the mess of the whole rulebook+codex+allied dex+suppliment+dataslate crap.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Does that also mean, that for the first time, the background was (re)written by the GW legal team, that proved so successfull in the Chapterhouse lawsuit?

Chapterhouse has little or nothing to do with it. GW has long realised, for at least 15 years that a lot of its IP was indefensible.
(...)
GW are ignorant of many things, but they know IP law.

Are we talking about the same GW, that until today believes they invented halberds and grenade launchers, that rejected to produce the necessary documents for an IP lawsuit until the end, that only during the CHS lawsuit noticed they had no documents on most IP claims and asked the artists to forfeit all their rights to GW (claiming to have lost those documents years ago), that during the lawsuit tried to copyright the shoulder pad form, was rejected but forgot to tell the judge? That dragged someone to court for over a year, who obviously had nothing to do with the case? That decided to delete its facebook page because their attack on "Spots the Space Marine" backfired?

Using different names on the front and back of the box won't help them with their IP problems either.

Larry Vela on BOLS wrote:Sources say Forgeword is already well into development of a variety of Imperial Knight add-ons and variant kits. Look for them to begin with easy to produce weapon add-on kits including:
-Knight Inferno Cannon
-Knight Plasma Cannon
-Knight Power Fist
Then they will move into more elaborate add-on kits including:-Chaos Knight
Lancers, Castellans, and Barons would seem like low-hanging fruit in the add-on kit department for Forgeworld but there is no chatter so far.

So enjoy Codex Imperial Knight with Inferno Cannon, Codex Imperial Knight with Plasma Cannon and Codex Imperial Knight with Power Fist in the near future

I hope GW lets me pay extra for each of those additional books!

 insaniak wrote:

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

So instead of releasing a whole codex for one model... just add them into Codex: Imperial Guard as part of the Guard army, or as allies to anyone Guard can ally with? And then release a dataslate with the list as it currently stands in the Codex for taking an army just of Knights...

And then, when they have the budget to add a new sprue with the other weapons and a couple new heads, they release a codex for the Knight army...

Would have achieved exactly the same as they have now (because I can't see sales of the Knight codex in its current form being huge), and would have kept everyone much happier about the whole situation.

The difference is as a codex it can be printed as a hardbound book. Dataslates are digital only products. They clearly thought of this product as being big and important and with that is the desire to not only print the rules, but print a collectors edition.

I hope they let my pay $65 for each or $220 for all three.

 Bull0 wrote:
We don't know that they aren't in the IG book, do we? I mean, it's kind of unlikely, but it's not impossible

There would be no point in including them in the Guard codex now, since Guard can take them outside the FOC through the Knight codex. Leave the heavy support options open for the Baneblade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DJGietzen wrote:
The difference is as a codex it can be printed as a hardbound book. Dataslates are digital only products. They clearly thought of this product as being big and important and with that is the desire to not only print the rules, but print a collectors edition.

How much bigger and more important would it have been if they had waited on the codex until they actually had more than two units?

I'd be very surprised if the games workshop design studio is going to come out with any more units or models that could have been in this codex.

I hear FW is going to make stuff to expand this codex/model but FW products will not be included in GW's main product line so there was nothing to wait and include.

 DJGietzen wrote:
I'd be very surprised if the games workshop design studio is going to come out with any more units or models that could have been in this codex.

Well, yes, now that they have the codex out, there would be little point, until they're ready to redo the codex.

That doesn't change the fact that a more complete codex later would have been a more sensible option than a codex with two units in it now.

 insaniak wrote:
Well, yes, now that they have the codex out, there would be little point, until they're ready to redo the codex.

That doesn't change the fact that a more complete codex later would have been a more sensible option than a codex with two units in it now.

Picture yourself as someone who works for GW. You've given two choices:

1. Some money now.
2. More money later.

If you work for GW, I don't even get to say the second one before you've said yes to the first.

Except the 'more money later' option would have still included 'some money now' if the Knight had been in the Guard codex instead.

In fact, I would wager it would have sold better as part of a revamped Guard codex than as a stand-alone, simply due to the distaste people have for this ridiculous excuse for the book.

 insaniak wrote:
Except the 'more money later' option would have still included 'some money now' if the Knight had been in the Guard codex instead.

In fact, I would wager it would have sold better as part of a revamped Guard codex than as a stand-alone, simply due to the distaste people have for this ridiculous excuse for the book.

Ah but your missing a fundamental of GWs business philosophy.

There isn't an issue of 'some money now' or 'some other money now'. Us smelly gamers will buy everything they put out, so if they add it into the guard release they sell us 1 guard codex. If they sell it separate right before the guard release they sell us 1 Knight codex AND 1 guard codex.

So why take some money now and more money later when you can have some money now and some more money now?

 insaniak wrote:
[...] since Guard can take them outside the FOC through the Knight codex. Leave the heavy support options open for the Baneblade.

... I think the Baneblade will just keep the Lord of War slot, leaving HS for "lesser" tanks, artillery, bombers...

Is this the first Codex that has made an all-vehicle army legal?

It seems to me the most significant thing about this is that it means you can make a list that makes anything that's not a strength 8 ranged weapon (or rending) a non-factor against a Knight list. Terminators are pointless against a Knight, Nobz and Warbosses would get torn to pieces, Boltguns and Shootas would be useless. Assault Marines would be useless. Anything Strength 7 would hardly scratch the paintjob.

Are you just supposed to bench anti-infantry units if your meta becomes dominated exclusively by Knights?

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

The Knight is not 6 3/4" tall...

6.5" at top of model.

So, NOT 6 3/4" tall? Right!

And if you take out the smoke stacks, which you should, unless if it had a banner on top you'd be back to claiming it was 8" tall?, that thing is just about...

...6" tall. Just like GW now claims.

£25 codex for one unit and several loadouts? That's... I can't even--

-ONE- unit?!

Seriously, isn't this what the dataslates are for? I honestly can't see this selling well.

So.. to use this unit you have to pay £25 for a rulebook for it as well?

Even for GW that is an absolute fething master-stroke - I keep thinking that there is no way they can top what they have already done in terms of bleeding the customer of every last penny, and then they pull something like this out of the backfield.

Ranor wrote:
£25 codex for one unit and several loadouts? That's... I can't even--
-ONE- unit?!
Seriously, isn't this what the dataslates are for? I honestly can't see this selling well.

No, the dataslades are for adding the 3 FW loadouts to the 2 GW ones
Oh, and don't forget, that they couldn't put all the pics and background into the Codex because it was so shock full of units, you need to buy the 75$ companion for that

Thachng wrote:
well here is one way to make it larger this is the Australia QLD townsville GW

Why am I seeing all of these Chaos conversions of Knights, if they aren't legally allowed to ally with Chaos? Hmmmm...........

 insaniak wrote:
In fact, I would wager it would have sold better as part of a revamped Guard codex than as a stand-alone...

Isn't it "sold out" already anyway? How do you sell better than being out of stock? Listing in a different codex wouldn't have changed the number of units manufactured.

 insaniak wrote:
Except the 'more money later' option would have still included 'some money now' if the Knight had been in the Guard codex instead.

In fact, I would wager it would have sold better as part of a revamped Guard codex than as a stand-alone, simply due to the distaste people have for this ridiculous excuse for the book.

I think the real reason may be that GW did, indeed, need the money now, because isn't the end of the fiscal year coming up for them?

 Breotan wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
In fact, I would wager it would have sold better as part of a revamped Guard codex than as a stand-alone...

Isn't it "sold out" already anyway? How do you sell better than being out of stock? Listing in a different codex wouldn't have changed the number of units manufactured.

'better' as in 'long term better', maybe?

Wow, Alpha(male?)arius, what gives? Guess a photo with tape measure doesn't prove anything... Yeah, guess if you didn't complete the build of your model with smoke stacks, you'd be at 6.25" (to be exact). (Why would anyone do that? ). And if you kept the top carapace off, you'd be at 6", and if you added basing you could heighten it to 7", 8", or more, etc... wow dude.... who frakken cares, bro? It is what it is.

 sub-zero wrote:

Thachng wrote:
well here is one way to make it larger this is the Australia QLD townsville GW

Spoiler:

Why am I seeing all of these Chaos conversions of Knights, if they aren't legally allowed to ally with Chaos? Hmmmm...........

Which kit do those extra bits come from, already?

the WoC fantasy warshrine

 sub-zero wrote:

Thachng wrote:
well here is one way to make it larger this is the Australia QLD townsville GW

Spoiler:

Why am I seeing all of these Chaos conversions of Knights, if they aren't legally allowed to ally with Chaos? Hmmmm...........

Could fit quite handily in with a "traitor" IG army.

I'm planning on building my first Knight straight, likely painting as the Obsidian Knight, to get familiar with the kit before I do any conversions, but it's quite likely I will be doing a chaosed up version for my traitor guard after that.

Aye Traitor Guard armies seem the most likely, I know Aura is considering to convert one down the line for hers based around those loyal to the Dark Mechanicus.

There will probably be a chaos knight version that comes out withan extra sprue of spikes, maybe different head options and a tail. With a price according to it. Then there will be a codex for chaos knights, with a separate painting guide, heraldry guide, and compendium not to mention limited editions of each. They will of course wait until all the chaos players buy this kit before they release that kit to get the omg I've got to buy that kit with those bits crews .

After that hysteria is done then the looted knight will come out with a separate sprue of glyphs and orky whatnot to go with it and all the books too.

Then the genestealer cult knight will release...

 krazynadechukr wrote:
Wow, Alpha(male?)arius, what gives? Guess a photo with tape measure doesn't prove anything... Yeah, guess if you didn't complete the build of your model with smoke stacks, you'd be at 6.25" (to be exact). (Why would anyone do that? ). And if you kept the top carapace off, you'd be at 6", and if you added basing you could heighten it to 7", 8", or more, etc... wow dude.... who frakken cares, bro? It is what it is.

You're the one that started off pushing this thing to 8" - then 6 3/4" and now you've finally settled at 6 1/4" - so, great!

Also, how tall is that Chaos Knight for you - 12"?

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
the WoC fantasy warshrine

Spoiler:

Oh my, I had completely missed that while trawling the website. The preview image is so small...

So with that kit, the Knight, and the White Dwarf, that's 245$

Hey Australia... why doesn't the motherland love us anymore?

$245 seems more then sensible for a model that technically speaking cant be used


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Link to painted knight down in the showcase
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582655.page

 Mathieu Raymond wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
the WoC fantasy warshrine

Spoiler:

Oh my, I had completely missed that while trawling the website. The preview image is so small...

So with that kit, the Knight, and the White Dwarf, that's 245$

Hey Australia... why doesn't the motherland love us anymore?

Looks like I can get those bits of the warshrine for about 10 bucks.

Maybe 15, if I want to get the bits for a specific chaos god.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ironicsilence wrote:
$245 seems more then sensible for a model that technically speaking cant be used


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Link to painted knight down in the showcase
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/582655.page

Again, it can quite handily be used if you play a traitor themed guard army.

YMMV

The Knight is a lovely model. But considering the time and utility I will get from it, I don't consider it to be expensive. I will spend days building and painting it and will "hopefully" have it for ever. Already been looking for suitable decals to use my own colour scheme. Venice Vidicon Vici have some good possibilities - http://www.3vwargames.co.uk/

 Theophony wrote:
There will probably be a chaos knight version that comes out withan extra sprue of spikes, maybe different head options and a tail. With a price according to it. Then there will be a codex for chaos knights, with a separate painting guide, heraldry guide, and compendium not to mention limited editions of each. They will of course wait until all the chaos players buy this kit before they release that kit to get the omg I've got to buy that kit with those bits crews .

After that hysteria is done then the looted knight will come out with a separate sprue of glyphs and orky whatnot to go with it and all the books too.

Then the genestealer cult knight will release...

When looking at the kit 2 sprues are the body and the 3rd has all the heads and pladin and errant unquic parts. I imagin future knight kit would replace this 3rd sprue

 Breotan wrote:
Isn't it "sold out" already anyway? How do you sell better than being out of stock?

By not producing the kit in small enough amounts that it will sell out so that you can artificially pad your investor report with another item that 'sold out' to prove you are doing well?


Seriously, without knowing the actual quantities involved, there is no way to equate selling 'out' with selling 'well'. I'm also working on the assumption that they'll still be selling it once they've made more...

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Isn't it "sold out" already anyway? How do you sell better than being out of stock?

By not producing the kit in small enough amounts that it will sell out so that you can artificially pad your investor report with another item that 'sold out' to prove you are doing well?


Seriously, without knowing the actual quantities involved, there is no way to equate selling 'out' with selling 'well'. I'm also working on the assumption that they'll still be selling it once they've made more...

I don't think the investors report mentions whether things "sell out" or not. They just show sales (in money, not individual products).

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Isn't it "sold out" already anyway? How do you sell better than being out of stock?

By not producing the kit in small enough amounts that it will sell out so that you can artificially pad your investor report with another item that 'sold out' to prove you are doing well?


Seriously, without knowing the actual quantities involved, there is no way to equate selling 'out' with selling 'well'. I'm also working on the assumption that they'll still be selling it once they've made more...

Purportedly it's not that the kits are "all sold out" but rather that shipments had to be diverted to cover missing/delayed stock because of the weather--which in turn means that subsequent stock is going to have to be diverted to cover that diversion, etc.

A sold out product means you didn't charge enough or produce enough - not something investors want to hear.

Saxon wrote:
A sold out product means you didn't charge enough or produce enough - not something investors want to hear.

Well... I don't think you could accuse them of not charging enough, so it must be the latter

shade1313 wrote:
Again, it can quite handily be used if you play a traitor themed guard army.

I'm sure that's a comforting thought for all the CSM players out there.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Purportedly it's not that the kits are "all sold out" but rather that shipments had to be diverted to cover missing/delayed stock because of the weather--which in turn means that subsequent stock is going to have to be diverted to cover that diversion, etc.

No matter which of the two reasons it is the Knight isn't 'sold out', making Breotan's argument no more or less disingenuous than it was when he first said it, nor Zwei's follow-up any less of a red herring.

shade1313 wrote:

 sub-zero wrote:

Thachng wrote:
well here is one way to make it larger this is the Australia QLD townsville GW

Spoiler:

Why am I seeing all of these Chaos conversions of Knights, if they aren't legally allowed to ally with Chaos? Hmmmm...........

Could fit quite handily in with a "traitor" IG army.

I'm planning on building my first Knight straight, likely painting as the Obsidian Knight, to get familiar with the kit before I do any conversions, but it's quite likely I will be doing a chaosed up version for my traitor guard after that.

Or you could just play it with your Chaos Space Marines and not give a rats arse about the chart. Seriously, it's your hobby dollars so why the hell shouldn't you do what you want with the model? The only restriction (other than the tournament scene) will be whether your opponent is okay with it or not. If he/she is, then have fun. Otherwise you have a cool conversion/centerpiece for your army. 'Nids can't ally with anyone but if someone converted up a cool Genestealer Cult army, I'd certainly play against them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Purportedly it's not that the kits are "all sold out" but rather that shipments had to be diverted to cover missing/delayed stock because of the weather--which in turn means that subsequent stock is going to have to be diverted to cover that diversion, etc.

No matter which of the two reasons it is the Knight isn't 'sold out', making Breotan's argument no more or less disingenuous than it was when he first said it, nor Zwei's follow-up any less of a red herring.

My argument isn't disingenuous at all. I was told that the kit had sold out worldwide. Hearsay and not hard data? Sure. Most of the stuff discussed on these forums is. Disingenuous? No.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Purportedly it's not that the kits are "all sold out" but rather that shipments had to be diverted to cover missing/delayed stock because of the weather--which in turn means that subsequent stock is going to have to be diverted to cover that diversion, etc.

No matter which of the two reasons it is the Knight isn't 'sold out', making Breotan's argument no more or less disingenuous than it was when he first said it, nor Zwei's follow-up any less of a red herring.

You are aware that as of this moment the Knight is listed as "despatching in one to two weeks" on the US and UK sites, right?

Saying it's "sold out" is not unreasonable given that information--and that most shops in the US no longer have them on their shelves.

Holy gak, same on the Northern Europe store site, well crap.

 Breotan wrote:
Or you could just play it with your Chaos Space Marines and not give a rats arse about the chart.

Yeah... people keep saying that in this thread and it basically amounts to: Just ignore the rules!

Sorry, but no. You don't just get to ignore the rules 'cause you feel like it nor because you went and bought a fancy new model. It's all well and good to ask your friends if you can use your Knight in your CSM army, or your Ork army or whatever, but for the large amount of people who play games of 40K as pick-up games or for the people playing in tournaments "Damned the rules, full speed ahead" isn't a viable solution.

 Breotan wrote:
I was told that the kit had sold out worldwide.

And believed it on face value. Reports of delayed shipments and emergency air-freight have been around for a couple of days now.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You are aware that as of this moment the Knight is listed as "despatching in one to two weeks" on the US and UK sites, right?

Saying it's "sold out" is not unreasonable given that information--and that most shops in the US no longer have them on their shelves.

Sheilds down boy'o. We know the reason for the delay.

Here's what the US web site says:

Availability:

This product is expected to despatch in one to two weeks.

Usually it'd say 24 hours if it were still in stock. ...like it does in Australia. Hmmm... Guess my informant's definition of "worldwide" doesn't include the land down under.

EDIT: Dang, they're even sold out in Canada where they price gouging is crazy on this kit.

Great!

But we already know the reasons, and "Totes sorry HHHobbiests, the ship's running late" isn't really something GW broadcasts.

I'm not blaming GW for this - the cargo container is late, that happens and it means everything on that ship is late, not just your precious precious Knights - but it's not sold out due to an overwhelming success. It's sold out because a good portion of the stock they made isn't in stores yet.

Well, on the bright side, the Warhammer Visions is also late.

Sorry, H.B.M.C. in this case, "damn the rules" is quite fitting. There's no reason Chaos shouldn't be allowed to use Knights, so, yeah, screw GW's official rules, considering in their own rulebook they tell you to do that anyway.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Sorry, H.B.M.C. in this case, "damn the rules" is quite fitting. There's no reason Chaos shouldn't be allowed to use Knights, so, yeah, screw GW's official rules, considering in their own rulebook they tell you to do that anyway.

There's also no reason Chaos Marines shouldn't be allowed to use razorbacks, redeemers, land speeders, storm ravens, or centurions either... But for the most part, people just accept that the rules don't allow it, and that Chaos gets other toys instead.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Sorry, H.B.M.C. in this case, "damn the rules" is quite fitting. There's no reason Chaos shouldn't be allowed to use Knights, so, yeah, screw GW's official rules, considering in their own rulebook they tell you to do that anyway.

How dare you sir! You will sit and wait to buy your $50 Chaos Knight Codex when GW decides you deserve it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and anyone making "knight" bases yet? Get on that 3rd party peoples.

 plastictrees wrote:
Oh, and anyone making "knight" bases yet? Get on that 3rd party peoples.

I can imagine the 3rd party guys looking at that base and slowly shaking their head while they /facepalm.

 insaniak wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Sorry, H.B.M.C. in this case, "damn the rules" is quite fitting. There's no reason Chaos shouldn't be allowed to use Knights, so, yeah, screw GW's official rules, considering in their own rulebook they tell you to do that anyway.

There's also no reason Chaos Marines shouldn't be allowed to use razorbacks, redeemers, land speeders, storm ravens, or centurions either... But for the most part, people just accept that the rules don't allow it, and that Chaos gets other toys instead.

Not really...

 MWHistorian wrote:
There's no reason Chaos shouldn't be allowed to use Knights, so, yeah, screw GW's official rules, considering in their own rulebook they tell you to do that anyway.

Are you intentionally trying to miss the point?

It doesn’t matter whether you think there should be Chaos Knights or not. Right now there aren’t any because that’s what the rules say, and whilst “screw GW’s official rules” might be A-ok for your little gaming group – and I can’t believe I’m having to repeat this – it is not going to be ok for random pick-up games at stores or in tournaments.

Am I getting through to you?

 insaniak wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Sorry, H.B.M.C. in this case, "damn the rules" is quite fitting. There's no reason Chaos shouldn't be allowed to use Knights, so, yeah, screw GW's official rules, considering in their own rulebook they tell you to do that anyway.

There's also no reason Chaos Marines shouldn't be allowed to use razorbacks, redeemers, land speeders, storm ravens, or centurions either... But for the most part, people just accept that the rules don't allow it, and that Chaos gets other toys instead.

The big difference here is that we're talking allies and not something systemic to the army. Although, to be honest, I wouldn't object to a chaosified razorback or land speeder in my opponent's army if it looked cool. Tournament organizers would slap that down, so you'd have to decide what is important to you, I guess.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
...it is not going to be ok for random pick-up games at stores or in tournaments.

Not at tournaments but I'm sure you could get plenty of pick-up games at stores as long as you inform your opponent about what you're doing. Yes, there will be the obstinate fellow who will pitch a fit, but most people (based solely on the people I know in my area) should be fine with it.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Not really...

Spoiler:

Wow. You found a picture of some converted models. Congratulations.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Not really...

Spoiler:

Wow. You found a picture of some converted models. Congratulations.

Why you so negative about all this? Not like you're being forced to play against them. If someone wants to run Nids with their Necrons and you don't like it, then don't play a game with them. They'll either find someone who doesn't care and have a great time, or they won't and will adjust to the local scene out of peer pressure. Either way, relax, it's all good.

 Breotan wrote:
The big difference here is that we're talking allies and not something systemic to the army.

How is that a meaningful distinction? By that logic you might as well ignore the entire point of the allies chart (it's broken-ness notwithstanding) and ally anything with anything. After all, it's just allies right, and not something systemic to the army?

 Breotan wrote:
Although, to be honest, I wouldn't object to a chaosified razorback or land speeder in my opponent's army if it looked cool. Tournament organizers would slap that down, so you'd have to decide what is important to you, I guess.

Neither would I. And the idea of Knight Households that sided with Horus during the Heresy or fell to Chaos either by choice or by accident during the subsequent 10,000 years isn't just within the realm of possibility but something I'd call a certainty.

But. That's. Not. The. Point.

The point is that the rules say what armies these can be part of, and any argument to the contrary is an argument for actually breaking the rules, which as I've said a thousand times already is perfectly ok with your own friends, but it isn't always going to fly at in a pickup game with a random person at a store or in a tournament. It's not about what's "important to you", it's simply a matter of some very black and white rules. What you do with your friends is your own deal, but not everyone wants to or even can play that way.

 Breotan wrote:
Not at tournaments but I'm sure you could get plenty of pick-up games at stores as long as you inform your opponent about what you're doing. Yes, there will be the obstinate fellow who will pitch a fit, but most people (based solely on the people I know in my area) should be fine with it.

So, you want to cheat (which is what breaking the rules is) and if your opponent won't let you, he is the dick?

Okaaaaaaaay.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


The point is that the rules say what armies these can be part of, and any argument to the contrary is an argument for actually breaking the rules, which as I've said a thousand times already is perfectly ok with your own friends, but it isn't always going to fly at in a pickup game with a random person at a store or in a tournament. It's not about what's "important to you", it's simply a matter of some very black and white rules. What you do with your friends is your own deal, but not everyone wants to or even can play that way.

Maybe you should try bringing those Chaos Centurions and Chaos Knights of yours to a store / pick-up game more often. You might be surprised.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Maybe you should try bringing those Chaos Centurions and Chaos Knights of yours to a store / pick-up game more often. You might be surprised.

*headdesk*

See, now I know you're just trying to be obtuse.

Thud wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Not at tournaments but I'm sure you could get plenty of pick-up games at stores as long as you inform your opponent about what you're doing. Yes, there will be the obstinate fellow who will pitch a fit, but most people (based solely on the people I know in my area) should be fine with it.

So, you want to cheat (which is what breaking the rules is) and if your opponent won't let you, he is the dick?

Okaaaaaaaay.

If I can use your reply as a case study, then yes. Most people who decline to play "illegal" armies like that are just fine to do so. I'm saying that outside the tournament scene it really isn't that big a deal.

Picked up the two Knight issues from White Dwarf weekly today. I am liking the hints they drop about the fluff regarding how advanced these suits are and that even the Ad-Mech doesn't seem to comprehend them and wants nothing more than to strip them for their tech.

Yea, iirc that's a pretty big change from the original fluff where the AdMech made these for the Knight worlds.

 Breotan wrote:
Yea, iirc that's a pretty big change from the original fluff where the AdMech made these for the Knight worlds.

Not really (I think)

The (pre-heresy) Mechanicum made them thousands of years ago. The 40K Mechanicus would like to get their hands on them and reverse-engineer? Seems fine, no?

I think you're missing the point. That's exactly what I'm saying. I say it should be okay with random pick up games. If I say, "hey, alright if I use chaos land speeders?" (or whatever.) I'd wager that very few would ever refuse and those that do would probably TFG anyway.

edit: and stop being so bloody negative, its starting to sound irrational.

 Breotan wrote:
Here's what the US web site says:

Availability:

This product is expected to despatch in one to two weeks.

Usually it'd say 24 hours if it were still in stock. ...like it does in Australia. Hmmm... Guess my informant's definition of "worldwide" doesn't include the land down under.

EDIT: Dang, they're even sold out in Canada where they price gouging is crazy on this kit.

As a different point of veiw to ponder:

In retail, we here all the time about a product being 'sold out', while we have tons of that Comic/GN/Model kit sitting on our shelves. Especially in cases where it just shipped. It just means that the manufacturer has no more to ship. And it sometimes does cause a bit of panic buying. But really, all those models have just been moved down one tier in the distribution to various retailers or subdistributors.

I take "sold out" with a grain of salt, until I see all of the product disappear off my stores shelves, and can't get more. I will be very happy if I sell out of the Knights I brought in.

 mikhaila wrote:
I take "sold out" with a grain of salt, until I see all of the product disappear off my stores shelves, and can't get more. I will be very happy if I sell out of the Knights I brought in.

They're flying off the shelves of the FLGS (non-GW stores) in my area. I hope your store enjoys the same sales volume. Just be a tad cautious when you reorder.

 Breotan wrote:
Yea, iirc that's a pretty big change from the original fluff where the AdMech made these for the Knight worlds.

I'm imagining actual techs and ground crew in coveralls working on these instead of prattling idiots in red robes now.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Not really...

Spoiler:

Wow. You found a picture of some converted models. Congratulations.

Hmmm, pictures of SM units converted to look chaotic...

I wonder, bear with me here, I wonder if someone decided to use the Vanilla book to represent a Chaos Warband, and therefore rendering these models as perfectly reasonable counts-as and totally legal within the scope of the rules?

Nah, must be the other thing.

There you go guys - an actual retailer providing actual information!

Thanks Mik!

*cough* house rules *cough* the rule book encourages house rules. H.B.M.C. you need to relax. These are not rules handed down by god.

 Musashi363 wrote:
*cough* house rules *cough* the rule book encourages house rules. H.B.M.C. you need to relax. These are not rules handed down by god.

House rules either don't work for pick up games, or require extensive pre-game negotiations. Either way, of they're necessary to play an ordinary one on one game, then the rules have failed.

This is quickly becoming the worst thread in the world.

"Hey, can I use this?"
"Sure,"

Wow, that was extensive.

Same thing we said earlier today at the store, if you want to give it a try or whatever, sure, go for it. No need to be a witch about it.

 Musashi363 wrote:
"Hey, can I use this?"
"Sure,"

Wow, that was extensive.

Hey can I use this?

Oh wow! When did *insert faction here* get the *insert unit name*

Well, they didn't, I just assumed that if I turned up with it then you'd feel obliged to let me play it..

Ah, well, the thing is, I'm not really that keen on playing against it, because it isn't really meant to be part of your army..

*awkward silence*

 azreal13 wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
"Hey, can I use this?"
"Sure,"

Wow, that was extensive.

Hey can I use this?

Oh wow! When did *insert faction here* get the *insert unit name*

Well, they didn't, I just assumed that if I turned up with it then you'd feel obliged to let me play it..

Ah, well, the thing is, I'm not really that keen on playing against it, because it isn't really meant to be part of your army..

*awkward silence*

This is one of those terrible conversations because everyone plays with different sorts of people and has different relationships with the people they play with.
For everyone that thinks it's fine that they should ask to use a Knight with their Chaos army there's someone that thinks you're being a dick for putting them in a position to have to turn you down or play against something they don't want to play against.

 Musashi363 wrote:
*cough* house rules *cough* the rule book encourages house rules. H.B.M.C. you need to relax. These are not rules handed down by god.

"Hey random person that I've never met at this random games store. Can I use my Knight in my Chaos army. My group totally house rules this, but that's ok right 'cause the rulebook says houserules are A-ok?"
"Can Knights ally with Chaos?"
"Well no, but we have a house rule..."
"No. I'd prefer we followed the rules."
"But the house rule..."
"I brought my army for some fun pick-up games. Do you have a army to use? One that doesn't break the rules?"
"But the house rule..."
"Hey, buddy, you with the Krieg army. Wanna game?"
"Sure!"
"But my house rules! Knights! Chaos! AHHHHH!!!"
"What's his problem?"
"No idea."

Rules are rules. Doing something contrary to the rules is breaking the rules. If your opponent is fine with that, then great and as I've said on numerous occasions the idea of Chaos Knights (or other non-Chaos units in Chaos armies) doesn't bother me personally but that's irrelevant to a discussion on what the rules are. On top of that, many people in this thread have been saying that they shouldn't need permission to fiend their Knight with whatever army they want or, worse, that people insisting that they play by the rules are somehow in the wrong. Neither of these things are true.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
"Hey, can I use this?"
"Sure,"

Wow, that was extensive.

Hey can I use this?

Oh wow! When did *insert faction here* get the *insert unit name*

Well, they didn't, I just assumed that if I turned up with it then you'd feel obliged to let me play it..

Ah, well, the thing is, I'm not really that keen on playing against it, because it isn't really meant to be part of your army..

*awkward silence*

Or you can try "Hey, Can I use this? Daddy Matt Ward has decided that my poor khornate marines can't play with my imperial knight, and I wanna see how it plays together".

Rinse, repeat, try as often as you like until you find players that will let you do so. The worst they will do is tell you No. In which case play w/o the unit, or play with someone else. Its amazingly simple.

It just won't work in a Tournament or super-serious setting. But its not like you wanna play with all the tryhard tau/dar anyways, do you? =P

 azreal13 wrote:
I wonder, bear with me here, I wonder if someone decided to use the Vanilla book to represent a Chaos Warband, and therefore rendering these models as perfectly reasonable counts-as and totally legal within the scope of the rules?

Silence fool! We'll have none of that logic in here. Only one man gets to fight for truth, justice and the logical way, and his name starts with a Z. Your name on the other hand only has a lower case z in it, and that will not do!!!

 Breotan wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
Oh, and anyone making "knight" bases yet? Get on that 3rd party peoples.

I can imagine the 3rd party guys looking at that base and slowly shaking their head while they /facepalm.

Fenris Games cut a blank for such a base this afternoon so will probably have something soonish (they are very busy with stuff for their participation game at Salute 2014)

Let me "adjust" Azreal13's scenario to something a little more realistic.

Hey can I use this?

No. I really would rather stick to the rules as they are written.

Okay. Thanks anyway. I'll guess I'll just get a game with someone else then.

There, see? Far less stress and far more likely to be what you encounter at your local game store.

Edited to appease the Mods.

"FTFY" is a definite "no no" on Dakka.

That point, Breoton, continues to miss you every time it flies by.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Musashi363 wrote:
*cough* house rules *cough* the rule book encourages house rules. H.B.M.C. you need to relax. These are not rules handed down by god.

"Hey random person that I've never met at this random games store. Can I use my Knight in my Chaos army. My group totally house rules this, but that's ok right 'cause the rulebook says houserules are A-ok?"
"Can Knights ally with Chaos?"
"Well no, but we have a house rule..."
"No. I'd prefer we followed the rules."
"But the house rule..."
"I brought my army for some fun pick-up games. Do you have a army to use? One that doesn't break the rules?"
"But the house rule..."
"Hey, buddy, you with the Krieg army. Wanna game?"
"Sure!"
"But my house rules! Knights! Chaos! AHHHHH!!!"
"What's his problem?"
"No idea."

Rules are rules. Doing something contrary to the rules is breaking the rules. If your opponent is fine with that, then great and as I've said on numerous occasions the idea of Chaos Knights (or other non-Chaos units in Chaos armies) doesn't bother me personally but that's irrelevant to a discussion on what the rules are. On top of that, many people in this thread have been saying that they shouldn't need permission to fiend their Knight with whatever army they want or, worse, that people insisting that they play by the rules are somehow in the wrong. Neither of these things are true.

Then I wouldn't play with that guy. Diffeernt strokes for different folks I suppose.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I wonder, bear with me here, I wonder if someone decided to use the Vanilla book to represent a Chaos Warband, and therefore rendering these models as perfectly reasonable counts-as and totally legal within the scope of the rules?

Silence fool! We'll have none of that logic in here. Only one man gets to fight for truth, justice and the logical way, and his name starts with a Z. Your name on the other hand only has a lower case z in it, and that will not do!!!

I'm starting a new Chaos army this summer. It'll use the rules in the new Codex: IG and Codex: Imperial Knights and a lot of random IG stuff from FW, but it'll still be unmistakably a Chaos army.

As far as Knights being sold out is concerned, it's comical of course for GW to claim that, but I'm sure the demand is really high. The model seems to appeal to hobbyists of all backgrounds.

 Therion wrote:
I'm starting a new Chaos army this summer. It'll use the rules in the new Codex: IG and Codex: Imperial Knights and a lot of random IG stuff from FW, but it'll still be unmistakably a Chaos army.

It'll be a Guard army themed as a Chaos force. It won't follow any Chaos rules nor use any Chaos units (other than counts-as/proxies). It will remain an Imperial Guard army, much like the wonderful Night Lords-themed army I fought a few weeks ago was still a Blood Angel army.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:
I wonder, bear with me here, I wonder if someone decided to use the Vanilla book to represent a Chaos Warband, and therefore rendering these models as perfectly reasonable counts-as and totally legal within the scope of the rules?

Silence fool! We'll have none of that logic in here. Only one man gets to fight for truth, justice and the logical way, and his name starts with a Z. Your name on the other hand only has a lower case z in it, and that will not do!!!

Ah, I've overstepped, please accept my humble apologies.

If anyone wants me, I'll be over there flagellating myself.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm starting a new Chaos army this summer. It'll use the rules in the new Codex: IG and Codex: Imperial Knights and a lot of random IG stuff from FW, but it'll still be unmistakably a Chaos army.

It'll be a Guard army themed as a Chaos force. It won't follow any Chaos rules nor use any Chaos units (other than counts-as/proxies). It will remain an Imperial Guard army, much like the wonderful Night Lords-themed army I fought a few weeks ago was still a Blood Angel army.

I think Games Workshop has been fairly open about their order of priorities.

(1) Miniatures > (2) Background > (3) Rules


If the first two are Night Lords, and only the least and last among them Blood Angels, it seems counter-intuitive to call it a Blood Angels army, no?

What you call it is irrelevant, the fact is it is legal within the rules as set out by GW.

Nobody I've seen has an issue with a well thought out counts as army that sticks to the rules of whatever faction they're using, the issue people have is when units that don't belong together are used in a non-Apoc list because the player feels they're entitled to do so, but has no rules permission to do so.

Irrelevant, Z (as usual). My point is - and has always been, since this whole shebang started - is that it doesn't matter what you do in your own little pond. The rules are the rules, and breaking them just ‘cause you have a nice new model or because the rulebook says house rules are fine isn’t something that you can just do whenever you feel like it. If your friends are fine with it, that’s great. If you find someone at a store in a pick-up game that’s cool to give it a try, then that’s wonderful.

But you should not expect everyone to be ok with breaking the rules (and that’s what it is – it’s taking something the rules say you cannot have) nor should you pretend that the guy wanting to follow the rules is somehow doing something wrong. That’s the key point people appear to be wilfully ignoring. Following the rules isn’t some sort of gaming faus pax; it’s the norm.

I own four armies that 40K either no longer supports or never even supported in the first place (Inquisitorial Army, Lost & The Damned, Deathwatch, Adeptus Mechanicus) and our group spent years developing and writing our own version of 40K and all its Codices. We’re very much on the side of ‘do what you want if it’s cool’, but I wouldn’t expect everyone to be as liberal with the rules as we are and I certainly wouldn’t look down upon or argue against someone who just wants to play by the rules.

Making sense yet?

 Breotan wrote:
Yea, iirc that's a pretty big change from the original fluff where the AdMech made these for the Knight worlds.

Wasn't the 'original' fluff that Knights were built by Eldar?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


But you should not expect everyone to be ok with breaking the rules

I never expect anyone to be anything. I always ask nicely, as should everyone. Always. Without exception.

But if you ask, and everyone agrees, what's the problem? Why stick to some idealistic rules-conformity "pre-emptively" before even bothering to ask?

Not to mention that quite a few people mentioned that "counts-as" is "ok" where "just adding a Knight" is not? Well, than do the former, if that is for some arcane reason more "palatable" and "acceptable". Same result, Chaos Knight on the table.

The rules are tools to have fun, not tools to spoil the fun.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Therion wrote:
I'm starting a new Chaos army this summer. It'll use the rules in the new Codex: IG and Codex: Imperial Knights and a lot of random IG stuff from FW, but it'll still be unmistakably a Chaos army.

It'll be a Guard army themed as a Chaos force. It won't follow any Chaos rules nor use any Chaos units (other than counts-as/proxies). It will remain an Imperial Guard army, much like the wonderful Night Lords-themed army I fought a few weeks ago was still a Blood Angel army.

Of course, but that's really just semantics. What else is an army except what it looks like? I've never felt any attachment towards a codex unit entry. I doubt many people do. You're attached to the theme and background of an army. The codex is just gameplay rules for what you want to play anyway. If those rules suck, you can keep the theme and the background and just pick your rules from somewhere else. That's why DIY Space Marine chapters have always had 5 codices to choose rules from, and why a traitor army big enough with enough unit options can play using as many as 8 or more codices.

Everyone's got a right to be upset about anything they want but in this light personally I can't get upset if I can't put a Heldrake and a Knight Paladin in the same army. I can have both on the shelf painted in the same colors and just field them at different events. The Chaos themed Knight can still have Chaos themed flyers in the same force, just not specifically a Heldrake, and to me that's a minor game balance issue not worth getting upset about.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


But you should not expect everyone to be ok with breaking the rules

I never expect anyone to be anything. I always ask nicely, as should everyone. Always. Without exception.

But if you ask, and everyone agrees, what's the problem? Why stick to some idealistic rules-conformity "pre-emptively" before even bothering to ask?

Not to mention that quite a few people mentioned that "counts-as" is "ok" where "just adding a Knight" is not? Well, than do the former, if that is for some arcane reason more "palatable" and "acceptable". Same result, Chaos Knight on the table.

The rules are tools to have fun, not tools to spoil the fun.

Counts as what? Lord Of Skulls?

 Therion wrote:
Of course, but that's really just semantics.

I don't disagree. I've always wanted to do a Tyranid army made up of Guardsmen. Running Guardsmen with double daggers for Hormagaunts, various Monstrous Creatures made up using Sentinels and whatnot. The expense of such a thing (and the fact that I already have a Tyranid army) has always stopped me, but I like the idea.

But at the end a Blood Angel army pretending to be Night Lords or a Guard army that calls itself “Renegade Guard” isn’t really the issue (it’s just semantics). The issue I’ve been talking about is taking something in your army that your army cannot normally have. That is breaking the rules and (I’m getting sick of typing this), not everyone is going to be ok with that and expecting people to be ok with that is wrong and and denigrating those that want to follow the rules is doubly wrong.

 Therion wrote:
That's why DIY Space Marine chapters have always had 5 codices to choose rules from, and why a traitor army big enough with enough unit options can play using as many as 8 or more codices.

My armies were structured in much the same way. My Ultramarines were always Ultramarines, but (when such things existed, before Chaos got Jervisified) my Chaos jumped between Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, World Eaters and Word Bearers an awful lot. My Guard is set up to do all-infantry, Mechanised, mixed, armoured company and air-cav (and due to the size of my Guard army, can do several of those simultaneously, but that’s neither here nor there).

But a Chaos army, using the Chaos Codex, attempting to bring a Knight (or any other things listed under Come the Apocalypse) to the table is not the same thing. It’s a case of actually breaking the rules.

 Therion wrote:
Everyone's got a right to be upset about anything they want but in this light personally I can't get upset if I can't put a Heldrake and a Knight Paladin in the same army. I can have both on the shelf painted in the same colors and just field them at different events.

And that’s great, but as I’ve said, that’s not really the point. The point is (and now I’m just going to copy/paste this)… breaking the rules and (I’m getting sick of typing this), not everyone is going to be ok with that and expecting people to be ok with that is wrong and[/i] and denigrating those that want to follow the rules is doubly wrong.[/i].

So is there any general consensus on whether or not the 15mm leviathan crusader would work as a good substitute for a knight because from the pics it would seem that with a bit of basing it should be a comparable size. Does anyone have a pic of the two side by side?

 Therion wrote:
Of course, but that's really just semantics.

I don't disagree. I've always wanted to do a Tyranid army made up of Guardsmen. Running Guardsmen with double daggers for Hormagaunts, various Monstrous Creatures made up using Sentinels and whatnot. The expense of such a thing (and the fact that I already have a Tyranid army) has always stopped me, but I like the idea.

But at the end a Blood Angel army pretending to be Night Lords or a Guard army that calls itself “Renegade Guard” isn’t really the issue (it’s just semantics). The issue I’ve been talking about is taking something in your army that your army cannot normally have. That is breaking the rules and (I’m getting sick of typing this), not everyone is going to be ok with that and expecting people to be ok with that is wrong and and denigrating those that want to follow the rules is doubly wrong.

 Therion wrote:
That's why DIY Space Marine chapters have always had 5 codices to choose rules from, and why a traitor army big enough with enough unit options can play using as many as 8 or more codices.

My armies were structured in much the same way. My Ultramarines were always Ultramarines, but (when such things existed, before Chaos got Jervisified) my Chaos jumped between Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, World Eaters and Word Bearers an awful lot. My Guard is set up to do all-infantry, Mechanised, mixed, armoured company and air-cav (and due to the size of my Guard army, can do several of those simultaneously, but that’s neither here nor there).

But a Chaos army, using the Chaos Codex, attempting to bring a Knight (or any other things listed under Come the Apocalypse) to the table is not the same thing. It’s a case of actually breaking the rules.

 Therion wrote:
Everyone's got a right to be upset about anything they want but in this light personally I can't get upset if I can't put a Heldrake and a Knight Paladin in the same army. I can have both on the shelf painted in the same colors and just field them at different events.

And that’s great, but as I’ve said, that’s not really the point. The point is (and now I’m just going to copy/paste this)… breaking the rules and (I’m getting sick of typing this), not everyone is going to be ok with that and expecting people to be ok with that is wrong and[/i] and denigrating those that want to follow the rules is doubly wrong.[/i].

 Zweischneid wrote:

I never expect anyone to be anything. I always ask nicely, as should everyone. Always. Without exception.

And? So? But? Therefore? Have I said anywhere that you shouldn’t?

 Zweischneid wrote:
But if you ask, and everyone agrees, what's the problem? Why stick to some idealistic rules-conformity "pre-emptively" before even bothering to ask?

I love how you’re saying “rules-confirmity” as if it were a bad thing. Playing by the rules is the norm, not the exception. Why is sticking to the rules 'idealistic'? It’s better to assume that people follow the rules than to assume that they don’t and that they’re somehow being an ass if they don’t let you field whatever you want.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Not to mention that quite a few people mentioned that "counts-as" is "ok" where "just adding a Knight" is not? Well, than do the former, if that is for some arcane reason more "palatable" and "acceptable". Same result, Chaos Knight on the table.

It’s not the same result Z. It’s not even close.

One scenario has you using a Knight as a Khornemower in your Chaos army. Bit of a different silhouette, but whatever; they’re both huge so it’s hardly entering the realms of ‘modelling for advantage’. You’re paying the points listed in the Escalation (or Apoc) book for it, using the rules printed in that book, and we go from there.

The other is using a Knight as a Knight in a Chaos army, and Chaos can’t get Knights. It’s worlds apart.

The rules are tools to have fun, not tools to spoil the fun.

And? I’ve never said anything to the contrary. I won’t fight your legion of straw men Z. It just ain’t going to happen. Come back when you’ve got an argument that’s on topic, or don’t come back at all. I don’t care either way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

shade1313 wrote:
Again, it can quite handily be used if you play a traitor themed guard army.

I'm sure that's a comforting thought for all the CSM players out there.

Since I'm one of those CSM players, who has already voiced his displeasure at the ally table as reported, I can report that, no, it's not really all that comforting. Just in case you were wondering.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
But a Chaos army, using the Chaos Codex, attempting to bring a Knight (or any other things listed under Come the Apocalypse) to the table is not the same thing. It’s a case of actually breaking the rules.

That's obvious. There are enough legal theme options in the game that noone needs to try bring Hive Tyrants in Dark Angels armies, or Imperial Knights in Codex: Chaos Space Marines armies. Rules are rules.

Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

*raises hand*

What am I, Nurgle gas?!

I thought we established this already: You are a lower case z.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

 insaniak wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Yea, iirc that's a pretty big change from the original fluff where the AdMech made these for the Knight worlds.

Wasn't the 'original' fluff that Knights were built by Eldar?

They had their own, I remember but I thought the Knight Worlds were originally a tight group of worlds out on the frontier somewhere and the AdMech built the Knights for the local lords who loved tournaments and jousting and stuff. I'm likely misremembering a lot and I don't have the old stuff available to look at so if someone has it, please correct me.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

We're not allowed to have an opinion different than H.B.M.C.'s

 MWHistorian wrote:

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

Disagree with which part?

Disagree that it’s breaking the rules (which it is – CSM cannot ally with Knights, doing so breaks the rules)?
Disagree that assuming people will be ok with it won’t be the norm?
Disagree that denigrating people that conform with the rules is bad?

As I keep saying, what you do with your friends is fine. If someone at your LGS is ok with it, even better! But it is breaking the rules, and expecting people to just go along with it or, worse, attacking them because they won’t is flat out wrong.

 Breotan wrote:
We're not allowed to have an opinion different than H.B.M.C.'s

Cut that gak out now. If you want to argue against my points, do so. But if you're going to start coming at me directly rather than what I'm saying, then that little yellow triangle's gonna get a lot of use.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Hey look at that. Someone in here gets it. Thank you Therion.

I get it, I really do, I just totally disagree.

It's hard for people to stay on topic while arguing with someone who doesn't think players need to follow the rules of 40K when playing games of 40K. I'm curious what the motivation for intentionally breaking fairly simple rules is, especially given the fact that everyone has alternatives I've talked about previously, but I fear it's a topic that will end this thread

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Disagree that assuming people will be ok with it won’t be the norm?

Sure. Let's go with this one. Will everyone be okay with it? No. But it only takes one person for me to get a game in. People who aren't okay with it don't have to play a game with me, do they?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But it is breaking the rules, and expecting people to just go along with it or, worse, attacking them because they won’t is flat out wrong.

No, but doing your own thing and asking if people are okay with it is just fine. If someone says no, either look for a different opponent or adjust your army. If someone gets all bent out of shape about it, then yes they are an asshat and you're better off looking for a different opponent anyway.

 Breotan wrote:

Thud wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Not at tournaments but I'm sure you could get plenty of pick-up games at stores as long as you inform your opponent about what you're doing. Yes, there will be the obstinate fellow who will pitch a fit, but most people (based solely on the people I know in my area) should be fine with it.

So, you want to cheat (which is what breaking the rules is) and if your opponent won't let you, he is the dick?

Okaaaaaaaay.

If I can use your reply as a case study, then yes. Most people who decline to play "illegal" armies like that are just fine to do so. I'm saying that outside the tournament scene it really isn't that big a deal.

Not to cut this to the quick, but all of this argument seems to circle around a simple fact:

Games Workshop rules are so bad they constitute an active impediment of enjoyment of the game.

I don't mean to be crude about it, but no one would seriously suggest using, say, a Stormwall in a Khador army (Warmachine reference). I don't mean use the model (because you like it better then the Conquest model), but use the model and the rules. This would be a non-starter in almost any setting because PP does precisely what GW does not: write rules that are balanced and work as written. N.B., just using PP here as an example, I could have used Infinity (Morats in a Japanese Sectoral?)... or basically any other game system, really.

I find it very interesting that no one seems to be arguing about the balance implications of putting a Knight in a Chaos army: I suspect that is because such an argument is laughable on its face. So, I suppose, the real point is, if GW doesn't take its rules seriously enough to care, why should any player?

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

Thud wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
Not at tournaments but I'm sure you could get plenty of pick-up games at stores as long as you inform your opponent about what you're doing. Yes, there will be the obstinate fellow who will pitch a fit, but most people (based solely on the people I know in my area) should be fine with it.

So, you want to cheat (which is what breaking the rules is) and if your opponent won't let you, he is the dick?

Okaaaaaaaay.

If I can use your reply as a case study, then yes. Most people who decline to play "illegal" armies like that are just fine to do so. I'm saying that outside the tournament scene it really isn't that big a deal.

Not to cut this to the quick, but all of this argument seems to circle around a simple fact:

Games Workshop rules are so bad they constitute an active impediment of enjoyment of the game.

I don't mean to be crude about it, but no one would seriously suggest using, say, a Stormwall in a Khador army (Warmachine reference). I don't mean use the model (because you like it better then the Conquest model), but use the model and the rules. This would be a non-starter in almost any setting because PP does precisely what GW does not: write rules that are balanced and work as written. N.B., just using PP here as an example, I could have used Infinity (Morats in a Japanese Sectoral?)... or basically any other game system, really.

I find it very interesting that no one seems to be arguing about the balance implications of putting a Knight in a Chaos army: I suspect that is because such an argument is laughable on its face. So, I suppose, the real point is, if GW doesn't take its rules seriously enough to care, why should any player?

Right. This is an etiquette discussion. I don't think anyone thinks that GW balanced the Knight with the armies it IS allowed to be fielded by, so...

 Breotan wrote:
Sure. Let's go with this one. Will everyone be okay with it? No. But it only takes one person for me to get a game in. People who aren't okay with it don't have to play a game with me, do they?

O…k…? I’ve never made any argument to the contrary. The issue has never been that you won’t find people who aren’t ok with it, or that you need to find lots of people that are ok with it. My point of contention has always been – right from the start, repeated ad-fething-nauseam – that you shouldn’t just expect people to be ok with it and that people who aren’t ok with it are not automatically ass-hats (as you put it) for wanting to play by the rules.

No, but doing your own thing and asking if people are okay with it is just fine.

Never said it wasn’t.

If someone says no, either look for a different opponent or adjust your army.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

If someone gets all bent out of shape about it, then yes they are an asshat and you're better off looking for a different opponent anyway.

This isn’t about someone getting ‘bent out of shape’ because you want to break the rules. It’s about the assumption that people will just be ok with people taking units that aren’t in their Codex (ie. playing 40K without following the 40K rules, as Therion put it), and that people who don’t wish to break the rules are somehow in the wrong.