At least the "collector's edition" has some prints and isn't just a dust jacket/cover like previous codex "collector's editions". It's not much but it is still an improvement.
Padre wrote: Has anyone got any news / rumours / developments to do with the Imperial Knights?
Please?
How about this:
The Hobby Store "Imaginary Wars" in USA posted this pic on facebook to prove the supply issues for Imperial Knights, showing the white stand-in boxes:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Imaginary-Wars/222813564466043 In Europe, the Imperial Knight sold out the first week, but more arrive this week.
That's my local in Calgary, CANADA. You need to fire your fact checking intern Kroot.
Having seen this picture, and the sizes for all the giant stuff, I find myself wondering why the Knight has been priced more than the humble Ork Stompa? Is it because of all the "fancy schmancy" additions and bits and stuff?
Cynicism aside, I am quite curious to see one of these things on the table, at least once.
I might be persuaded to buy the novel, as its a story.
But a codex, for two models, I can't get my head around justifying that one.
Dr. Temujin wrote: Having seen this picture, and the sizes for all the giant stuff, I find myself wondering why the Knight has been priced more than the humble Ork Stompa? Is it because of all the "fancy schmancy" additions and bits and stuff?
Cynicism aside, I am quite curious to see one of these things on the table, at least once.
Knights are extra price because they have all these cool, chapters, I mean houses and stuff. Ork Stompas are just orks in a stompa, it's not like they have any history or clans or stuff.
Jeez, a 40k book where the focus isn't infantry? Sign me up!
Seriously, I must have read about 20-30 BL books and the only one I distinctly remember as being centric around vehicular combat was Gun heads by Steve Parker, featuring Leman Russ combat no less.
Orlanth wrote: I might be persuaded to buy the novel, as its a story.
But a codex, for two models, I can't get my head around justifying that one.
Dr. Temujin wrote: Having seen this picture, and the sizes for all the giant stuff, I find myself wondering why the Knight has been priced more than the humble Ork Stompa? Is it because of all the "fancy schmancy" additions and bits and stuff?
Cynicism aside, I am quite curious to see one of these things on the table, at least once.
Knights are extra price because they have all these cool, chapters, I mean houses and stuff. Ork Stompas are just orks in a stompa, it's not like they have any history or clans or stuff.
I think we've established that GW are raising prices on a release by release basis rather than across the board. Hence the box art change + minor increase on the rumored chaos releases.
Expect to see a jump when Ork Stompa: Action Safari Edition is released.
Compel wrote: You've forgotten a little book called... Titanicus.
It's not about infantry...
Or ravenwing and the white scar book as they focused more on cavalry... or the two HH books that focused on void ship warfare... or Baneblade which I'll leave up to your imagination what it deals with. Those are just the ones off the top of my head and I haven't kept very current with the BL offerings since they switched to a more greedy release format. While non-infantry books are definitely in the minority, there are a few to choose from. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a Knight Titan book coming up to go along with the release of the plastic kit and rules.
warboss wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if they had a Knight Titan book coming up to go along with the release of the plastic kit and rules.
Funny enough, they do (who would've thought).
Spoiler:
Knights of the Imperium
“I sense the impatience of my armour’s former wearers. I wait, letting the swarms fully take the bait of the servitor convoy. Right now, the beasts will be tearing open the vehicles and slaughtering the servitors. Only a few will have autonomy enough to fight back, but most will not have the capability to even raise a fist in their own defence.
Their deaths will serve a greater purpose.
A series of explosions from the upper reaches of the temple makes the decision for me. The ground shakes as buried reactors go into meltdown.
‘Knights of the Imperium,’ I shout. ‘We ride!’”
Apocalyptic action with massive War Machines
Features House Cadmus, Tyranids and Adeptus MechanicusTies in with the new Codex: Imperial KnightsExplores the traditions and customs of the knightly houses
The swarms of Hive Fleet Hydra descend upon the world of Vondrak, and the Knights of Cadmus answer the call to war. Baron Roland of Cadmus seeks to throw off the yoke of Adeptus Mechanicus control, but the lords of the Red Planet do not easily relinquish their vassals, and they will do anything to ensure that Cadmus remains bound to Mars. With the fate of Vondrak at stake and the designs of a feared Martian adept upon them, can the Knights of the Imperium survive long enough to repel the hated xenos?
Knights of the Imperium is a 128 page, hardback novella by Graham McNeill. Exclusive to games-workshop.com, blacklibrary.com and Games Workshop Stores
Compel wrote: You've forgotten a little book called... Titanicus.
It's not about infantry...
Or ravenwing and the white scar book as they focused more on cavalry... or the two HH books that focused on void ship warfare... or Baneblade which I'll leave up to your imagination what it deals with. Those are just the ones off the top of my head and I haven't kept very current with the BL offerings since they switched to a more greedy release format. While non-infantry books are definitely in the minority, there are a few to choose from. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a Knight Titan book coming up to go along with the release of the plastic kit and rules.
Meh, Bikes and Void Warfare are the big exceptions which I've read about, particularly the latter in Scars and Betrayer.
I want books on the heavy metal - Leman Russes and such. Gunheads is the only book I've read where that's been centric.
Yodhrin wrote: Ah righto, so you've been arguing against a near-completely imaginary opposition this entire time, fair enough.
Then says this in the same breath:
If I said "Hey can I use this Knight in my Chaos army"(a total hypothetical as I have neither at the moment), they refused, and their response to me politely asking them why was "Because the rules are the rules, sacred and inviolate", then I have as much right to think of them as being narrow and pedantic at the expense of fun as they do to think of me as some kind of monstrous gaming anarchist. And if they choose to say so in a public venue, say, on some kind of internet discussion forum, then I have just as much right to express my opinion of them in that medium as they do of me.
After having already said this:
Yodhrin wrote: Seriously though, if "the rules" are your focus, why on earth would you be playing 40K?
And this:
Yodhrin wrote: Out of interest, why not? It's sufficient justification for "counts-as", it's sufficient justification for moving away from strict and literal WYSIWYG, so why not in the case of the example given? People "change the rules" all the time, for any number of reasons, so why draw the line here and not there, unless in the back of your(plural) minds you(plural) know full well that rubbishing a lot of effort one of your(plural) mates has put into something is a move and you(plural) want to justify that to yourselves and everyone else. "Oh I'm not treating a buddy like crap, I'm just following the rules innit guv, them's the breaks, more than my job's worth etc etc".
Yodhrin wrote: Disliking random mechanics = changing the rules is cool beans. Rewarding the substantial effort of your friend = no dice bub, the Word is the Law, praise Geedub.
Imagined hey? HA!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yodhrin wrote: As for RPGs and wargames being incomparable, I reject the assertion. Rules exist to facilitate gameplay, as a framework, nothing more than that. Participants decide how the game is played and what role the rules take in it; I've played RPG campaigns in which the GM's only role was to ensure a level playing field for a cut-throat backstabbing ruthlessly competitive story where only one character would come out alive, and I've played co-op wargames with and without GMs focused entirely on developing a narrative with no consideration of victory or defeat. You choose to see a distinction because it suits your opinion that wargame rules should be inviolate diktats unless one party begs, pleads, and promises their soul in exchange for a concession from their magnanimous opponent.
Firstly, I didn’t say incomparable. I said the comparison was invalid, and it is, for the exact reasons I stated, but I’ll do so again because you must’ve missed them.
A war game has two sides (sometimes more, but that’s unusual). The goal of the game, and the purpose of the rules, is to facilitate a battle between those two (or more) sides, with the intent being that there be a winner by the time the game ends.
An RPG has no ‘sides’. There’s no ‘winner’ and ‘loser’ in the same way as a war game. There are players who (nominally) work as a team to overcome obstacles set in their path by a game master, the person who controls the world the players’ characters inhabit and controls outside elements, such as adversaries and NPC’s.
You can compare to the two, but in this particular instance your comparison was invalid as RPGs and war games are two very different creatures.
kronk wrote: I don't like the Imperial Knight models, so I won't buy them. I'm not going to picket outside of GWHQ with a sign that reads "Less Imperial Knights, More Sisters of Battle!"
Of course not. Only Sisters players are insane enough to do that.
Compel wrote: You've forgotten a little book called... Titanicus.
It's not about infantry...
Or ravenwing and the white scar book as they focused more on cavalry... or the two HH books that focused on void ship warfare... or Baneblade which I'll leave up to your imagination what it deals with. Those are just the ones off the top of my head and I haven't kept very current with the BL offerings since they switched to a more greedy release format. While non-infantry books are definitely in the minority, there are a few to choose from. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a Knight Titan book coming up to go along with the release of the plastic kit and rules.
"Double Eagle" details the Phantine Air Corps and is a good read.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
Not being critical of your attempts, but is this the best WE can do?
Doesn't anyone have a picture of the two side by side?
First off, one needed to be a DreamForge KS supporter to own one of the 15mm Crusaders, since they are not available at retail yet.
Then this theoretical person would have to have bought and assembled a GW knight.
Then he would have to be a member of Dakka, have a decent camera and be willing to take photos and upload them.
The intersection subset of these seven events is likely to be very small...
Why do I get the feeling that this release, following on from escalation is paving the way for lord of war/super heavy slots in the standard codices? I can just see the IG codex adding a Baneblade at the end of the FOC, likewise a Stompa for Orks.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
Not being critical of your attempts, but is this the best WE can do?
Doesn't anyone have a picture of the two side by side?
First off, one needed to be a DreamForge KS supporter to own one of the 15mm Crusaders, since they are not available at retail yet.
Then this theoretical person would have to have bought and assembled a GW knight.
Then he would have to be a member of Dakka, have a decent camera and be willing to take photos and upload them.
The intersection subset of these seven events is likely to be very small...
T
Well, do be fair, you won't have to be a member of Dakka, someone could have posted it on Warseer / B&C and someone could have seen it there and then shoved it over here.
And if you bought one huge titanesque model ASAP, wouldn't you be likely to have also bought the second ASAP when it was made available???
Jadenim wrote: Why do I get the feeling that this release, following on from escalation is paving the way for lord of war/super heavy slots in the standard codices? I can just see the IG codex adding a Baneblade at the end of the FOC, likewise a Stompa for Orks.
Not sure how I feel about that...
Why sell one book when you can sell mutliple books?
They just released codex knights, an entire codex for 1 model.
Why not codex stompa or codex baneblade? The horrible financial and rules precedent set by publishing an entire codex for 1 large model is troubling to say the least.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
That's maybe a 1/4" difference? Not enough to matter, though. What is clear is this: a 15mm DF Leviathan is too small to be used as a Knight straight out of the box. With conversion, it could be made taller, as well as having some embellishments on it's base to raise it another inch or so. THEN, I'm sure it will be an acceptable stand-in. But it is obvious that the Leviathan is too small, so why is this such a hot topic?
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
That's maybe a 1/4" difference? Not enough to matter, though. What is clear is this: a 15mm DF Leviathan is too small to be used as a Knight straight out of the box. With conversion, it could be made taller, as well as having some embellishments on it's base to raise it another inch or so. THEN, I'm sure it will be an acceptable stand-in. But it is obvious that the Leviathan is too small, so why is this such a hot topic?
The knight model's torso is huge, if a count as model wasn't the same dimension from the top down, would that not give count as models an advantage when it comes to small and large blast templates?
Yeah, so maybe the Leviathan would STILL be too small. Regardless, the talk now is about the height, which is clearly and obviously much less than the IK model.
agnosto wrote: Looks like it includes the super-heavy walker rules so you don't need to run out and buy another rulebook just to use the one model in this rulebook.
Where is that said?
It will be interesting if it does include the Super-Heavy rules. That really makes it a "normal" 40k model rather than an escalation model and further blurs the lines between what most of us consider standard 40k and escalation 40k.
It does also do the stupid thing GW often do, which is place the same or similar special rules in multiple places, making rule updates all the more convoluted.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
That's maybe a 1/4" difference? Not enough to matter, though. What is clear is this: a 15mm DF Leviathan is too small to be used as a Knight straight out of the box. With conversion, it could be made taller, as well as having some embellishments on it's base to raise it another inch or so. THEN, I'm sure it will be an acceptable stand-in. But it is obvious that the Leviathan is too small, so why is this such a hot topic?
The knight model's torso is huge, if a count as model wasn't the same dimension from the top down, would that not give count as models an advantage when it comes to small and large blast templates?
Isn't base size the only relevant factor there? Just getting back in to 40k so I'm likely wrong.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
That's maybe a 1/4" difference? Not enough to matter, though. What is clear is this: a 15mm DF Leviathan is too small to be used as a Knight straight out of the box. With conversion, it could be made taller, as well as having some embellishments on it's base to raise it another inch or so. THEN, I'm sure it will be an acceptable stand-in. But it is obvious that the Leviathan is too small, so why is this such a hot topic?
Hot topic because one or any combo of the following : 1.) GW haters who still want to play 40k (huh? yup! ) without using their (gw) models, 2.) $30-55 for DF 15mm model versus $110 (ebay) to $150 (with tax) for IK, 3.) Some people dislike look of IK and like look of DF model 4.) DF wanters don't go to GW to game or use it in tournies
Anyways, GW was smart making the IK over 1.75" taller than df 15mm & 2" shorter than df 28mm one...
I wouldn't play against a 15mm df model unless it was elevated to 6.5" overall ... unfair cover for the shorty otherwise.
agnosto wrote: Looks like it includes the super-heavy walker rules so you don't need to run out and buy another rulebook just to use the one model in this rulebook.
Where is that said?
It will be interesting if it does include the Super-Heavy rules. That really makes it a "normal" 40k model rather than an escalation model and further blurs the lines between what most of us consider standard 40k and escalation 40k.
It does also do the stupid thing GW often do, which is place the same or similar special rules in multiple places, making rule updates all the more convoluted.
Its in the release video; they're thumbing through the codex and you can see the rules. 45 second mark.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
That's maybe a 1/4" difference? Not enough to matter, though. What is clear is this: a 15mm DF Leviathan is too small to be used as a Knight straight out of the box. With conversion, it could be made taller, as well as having some embellishments on it's base to raise it another inch or so. THEN, I'm sure it will be an acceptable stand-in. But it is obvious that the Leviathan is too small, so why is this such a hot topic?
The knight model's torso is huge, if a count as model wasn't the same dimension from the top down, would that not give count as models an advantage when it comes to small and large blast templates?
Isn't base size the only relevant factor there? Just getting back in to 40k so I'm likely wrong.
It's a vehicle, hull matters. Think a valkaryie model without wings, if it's in hover model, those wings matter when it comes to blast templates, without wings its hard to hit and blast scatter is more likely to not hit the hull. Height isn't the only factor, overall dimension matters.
I'm cool with count as conversions, I've done many myself but I try my best to ensure the conversion is as close in dimensions to the original model as I can and especially if it's a vehicle. If I was going to make a count as knight conversion I would start by having it on the same base and bits ordering that won't be cheap. Whether or not the end goal was emulation or something radical (different than imperial) I would still try my dambdest to ensure the end result was as close as possible to the dimensions of the actual knight model.
Anyways, GW was smart making the IK over 1.75" taller than df 15mm & 2" shorter than df 28mm one...
I wouldn't play against a 15mm df model unless it was elevated to 6.5" overall ... unfair cover for the shorty otherwise.
I think that's unfair to GW. I worked on a digital model of my own version of Knight off and on again for 4 years... But over that time when ever someone asked about Knights, particularly their scaling, I had a very thorough analysis I'd reiterate. The jist of it was that the scale of the Epic Knight was the same scale as the vehicles and a different scale than Titans. Those who scaled it based on the epic Titans relative to the FW titans would conclude it was about 9.5"... But when you compared an epic Knight to a epic land raider and used that as a basis for the size you ended up with a 40k knight that was between 6.5" and 7" depending on the variant and whether you included the ornamental spikes present on certain variants. That said 6.5" is the correct size based on the old epic Knight models.
Anyways, GW was smart making the IK over 1.75" taller than df 15mm & 2" shorter than df 28mm one...
I wouldn't play against a 15mm df model unless it was elevated to 6.5" overall ... unfair cover for the shorty otherwise.
I think that's unfair to GW.
I don't care how they got the IK to be smack in the middle of the DF models. I for one am on the GW band wagon, and I think my purchase of my knight, and the codex, will keep me in the good graces of GW. Unfair, scoff...
Hot topic because one or any combo of the following : 1.) GW haters who still want to play 40k (huh? yup! ) without using their (gw) models
You seem perplexed at the idea that someone can both dislike GW yet still like 40K. You also seem to have some objection with non-GW models being used in 40K.
Is this the case, and if so, why do you feel this way?
Anyways, GW was smart making the IK over 1.75" taller than df 15mm & 2" shorter than df 28mm one...
I wouldn't play against a 15mm df model unless it was elevated to 6.5" overall ... unfair cover for the shorty otherwise.
I think that's unfair to GW.
I don't care how they got the IK to be smack in the middle of the DF models. I for one am on the GW band wagon, and I think my purchase of my knight, and the codex, will keep me in the good graces of GW. Unfair, scoff...
I bought it all too, after 4 1/2 years of not buying anything besides FW's books. I'm just trying to say I don't think GW planned its size with regards to the DF model. I believe GW can be malicious and cut throat, I just don't think this is an instance of that. I think this was a sincere attempt to portray a knight, without any of the baggage of prohibiting DF's model. They had a previously established rationale that predates DF's model.
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
That's maybe a 1/4" difference? Not enough to matter, though. What is clear is this: a 15mm DF Leviathan is too small to be used as a Knight straight out of the box. With conversion, it could be made taller, as well as having some embellishments on it's base to raise it another inch or so. THEN, I'm sure it will be an acceptable stand-in. But it is obvious that the Leviathan is too small, so why is this such a hot topic?
The knight model's torso is huge, if a count as model wasn't the same dimension from the top down, would that not give count as models an advantage when it comes to small and large blast templates?
Isn't base size the only relevant factor there? Just getting back in to 40k so I'm likely wrong.
It's a vehicle, hull matters. Think a valkaryie model without wings, if it's in hover model, those wings matter when it comes to blast templates, without wings its hard to hit and blast scatter is more likely to not hit the hull. Height isn't the only factor, overall dimension matters.
I'm cool with count as conversions, I've done many myself but I try my best to ensure the conversion is as close in dimensions to the original model as I can and especially if it's a vehicle. If I was going to make a count as knight conversion I would start by having it on the same base and bits ordering that won't be cheap. Whether or not the end goal was emulation or something radical (different than imperial) I would still try my dambdest to ensure the end result was as close as possible to the dimensions of the actual knight model.
Well it's a super heavy walker. As a walker it's the base size right? Something different about super heavy?
For me personally, I like the Leviathan, would like to support Dreamforge, but have little chance of persuading anyone to ever play Iron Core (assuming I like it myself).
I'm sure that I will also purchase a Knight at some point. I'm not trying to 'send a message' to GW, I just want an excuse to buy a Leviathan (which I have already bought...).
krazynadechukr Wrote: [
Hot topic because one or any combo of the following : 1.) GW haters who still want to play 40k (huh? yup! ) without using their (gw) models, 2.) $30-55 for DF 15mm model versus $110 (ebay) to $150 (with tax) for IK, 3.) Some people dislike look of IK and like look of DF model 4.) DF wanters don't go to GW to game or use it in tournies
Anyways, GW was smart making the IK over 1.75" taller than df 15mm & 2" shorter than df 28mm one...
I wouldn't play against a 15mm df model unless it was elevated to 6.5" overall ... unfair cover for the shorty otherwise. ]
I would like to address some of these things you say, as both a GW "Hater" and the owner of a DFG Leviathan.
1) I have been playing GW games, and 40k specifically for over 21 years, so if my 2 DECADES of experience points to the fact that GW ran their company more customer focused in the 90's, it is because I have personally experienced this. Not quite sure how 21 years of (not completely) blind loyalty makes ME the hater, but if in lets people sleep better at night to call me names, that's their business.
2) The DreamForge Leviathan was made over 3 years ago, wayyyyyy before GW was even considering doing a knight. I have a resin DFG Leviathan model that they used for the basis of their plastic kit. The DFG Kickstarter for the plastic kits, both 4.5 inch and 8 inch models was over a year and a half ago. Also still before GW had began production of the knight. Conjecture: DreamForge game made a model to fill a demand GW was not filling themselves; for a 40k scale Knight. Conjecture: GW saw the success of DFG, realized that they could have been making money all along, and finally produce their own knight model. Conjecture: GW produce their own knight model in between the 2 scales that DFG uses in order to invalidate the after-market model. DFG prices were set before GW released their Knight, thus GW had the opportunity to price theirs competitively, but chose not to do so.
3) I can't argue this one. People's opinions are their own, and everybody is entitled to theirs. Just as long as people don't confuse their opinion with facts.
4) The people who bought DFG Leviathan did so (almost 2 years ago) knowing that they would not be able to use them in official GW stores or tournaments. The release of GW's official knight model does not change this fact.
Personaly, I like both models, but if the rumors that CSM can't use a knight are true, then there is no need for me to buy GW's "Official" model.
warboss wrote: I wouldn't be surprised if they had a Knight Titan book coming up to go along with the release of the plastic kit and rules.
Funny enough, they do (who would've thought).
Spoiler:
Knights of the Imperium
“I sense the impatience of my armour’s former wearers. I wait, letting the swarms fully take the bait of the servitor convoy. Right now, the beasts will be tearing open the vehicles and slaughtering the servitors. Only a few will have autonomy enough to fight back, but most will not have the capability to even raise a fist in their own defence.
Their deaths will serve a greater purpose.
A series of explosions from the upper reaches of the temple makes the decision for me. The ground shakes as buried reactors go into meltdown.
‘Knights of the Imperium,’ I shout. ‘We ride!’”
Apocalyptic action with massive War Machines
Features House Cadmus, Tyranids and Adeptus MechanicusTies in with the new Codex: Imperial KnightsExplores the traditions and customs of the knightly houses
The swarms of Hive Fleet Hydra descend upon the world of Vondrak, and the Knights of Cadmus answer the call to war. Baron Roland of Cadmus seeks to throw off the yoke of Adeptus Mechanicus control, but the lords of the Red Planet do not easily relinquish their vassals, and they will do anything to ensure that Cadmus remains bound to Mars. With the fate of Vondrak at stake and the designs of a feared Martian adept upon them, can the Knights of the Imperium survive long enough to repel the hated xenos?
Knights of the Imperium is a 128 page, hardback novella by Graham McNeill. Exclusive to games-workshop.com, blacklibrary.com and Games Workshop Stores
Novellas aren't real books, we need to stop pretending they are and paying book price for them.
Hot topic because one or any combo of the following : 1.) GW haters who still want to play 40k (huh? yup! ) without using their (gw) models
You seem perplexed at the idea that someone can both dislike GW yet still like 40K. You also seem to have some objection with non-GW models being used in 40K.
Is this the case, and if so, why do you feel this way?
Seems to me that people being unwilling to accept non-GW models in a GW game is really no different from people who are unwilling to experiment with things like Chaos Knights in friendly games. It's about drawing lines on what is acceptable to both players.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Seems to me that people being unwilling to accept non-GW models in a GW game is really no different from people who are unwilling to experiment with things like Chaos Knights in friendly games. It's about drawing lines on what is acceptable to both players.
Nice try, but no. Unless of course you can show where the rules require you to use Citadel Miniatures.
And for the umpteenth time, this issue wasn't about stopping people from using Chaos Knights, it was about people wanting to use Chaos Knights acting incredulous at the idea that using Chaos Knights wouldn't be automatically accepted, or the general idea that just because you can house rule something doesn't mean that everyone should accept your house rules or be lambasted because they want to follow the rules.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Seems to me that people being unwilling to accept non-GW models in a GW game is really no different from people who are unwilling to experiment with things like Chaos Knights in friendly games. It's about drawing lines on what is acceptable to both players.
Nice try, but no. Unless of course you can show where the rules require you to use Citadel Miniatures.
And for the umpteenth time, this issue wasn't about stopping people from using Chaos Knights, it was about people wanting to use Chaos Knights acting incredulous at the idea that using Chaos Knights wouldn't be automatically accepted, or the general idea that just because you can house rule something doesn't mean that everyone should accept your house rules or be lambasted because they want to follow the rules.
So as I said, nice try.
careful what you wish for. Page 2 of the BRB tells us that all the rules in the book about 'models' are referring to the citadel miniatures used to play the game.
judgedoug wrote: Man, I am a huge huge fan of Epic - from Adeptus Titanicus through Space Marine and Titan Legions. I own approximately 60 Titans - a dozen Warhound battlegroups, a dozen Reavers, dozens of Warlords and some Imperators (and over a dozen Gargants and over a dozen Eldar titans as well). I've had every edition of Knight released in Epic from the original awkward Knights in 1989 or so to the redesigned 1993-1994 era.
This kit looks like crap.
The legs are tiny and the torso is about 50% larger than it should be. The side-view pics say it all. What an ungainly turd.
One of the main turnoffs for Warmachine for me is the visual style, especially of the Warjacks. This Knight looks like a Knight Paladin banged a Warjack and produced this awful offspring.
Got my knight this morning - it arrived yesterday at work but I'm on holiday at the moment so went in today to pick it up.
I got it from Gaming Figures which I am trying to champion because although it doesn't have the best prices, I've found them very reliable & contact you straight away if there's a problem (eg if an item isn't in stock - they give you a choice to cancel, send other items separately, or wait for it to come in stock) - ie great customer service. I have absolutely no affiliation with them & I'm am just one of their customers.
Just thought I'd share.
MajorWesJanson wrote: Seems to me that people being unwilling to accept non-GW models in a GW game is really no different from people who are unwilling to experiment with things like Chaos Knights in friendly games. It's about drawing lines on what is acceptable to both players.
Nice try, but no. Unless of course you can show where the rules require you to use Citadel Miniatures.
And for the umpteenth time, this issue wasn't about stopping people from using Chaos Knights, it was about people wanting to use Chaos Knights acting incredulous at the idea that using Chaos Knights wouldn't be automatically accepted, or the general idea that just because you can house rule something doesn't mean that everyone should accept your house rules or be lambasted because they want to follow the rules.
So as I said, nice try.
Completely agree with you HBMC (what does it stand for??). If I want to use something that's not 100% legit like using the FW Great Unclean One in a CSM army using the Escalation rules, which I did recently, I asked my opponent if he was ok with it. I wouldn't, at all, been offended if he said 'no' but, luckily for me, he said 'yes'. He also went on to beat me in what was one of my most enjoyable games in some time.
HOWEVER - this is all starting to get a bit boring & tedious reading through the back & forth arguments about this issue while I'm trying to find each tidbit of actual news.
I am not a MOD & I might be risking sanction but that's my view. Don't mean to offend.
Games Workshop: Warhammer World at Games Workshop: Warhammer World
We were asked if we could do a size comparison for the Imperial Knights, with a Riptide, Eldar Wraithknight and a Warhound... so here they are fighting it out over Dheneb Capitalis in our events hall.
agnosto wrote: Looks like it includes the super-heavy walker rules so you don't need to run out and buy another rulebook just to use the one model in this rulebook.
Where is that said?
It will be interesting if it does include the Super-Heavy rules. That really makes it a "normal" 40k model rather than an escalation model and further blurs the lines between what most of us consider standard 40k and escalation 40k.
It does also do the stupid thing GW often do, which is place the same or similar special rules in multiple places, making rule updates all the more convoluted.
Its in the release video; they're thumbing through the codex and you can see the rules. 45 second mark.
I'll be interested in having confirmation of this... if it is true, it may convince me to actually buy the codex.
But if I need the codex AND escalation to be able to use them, I'll stick to my white dwarf rules and wait for the updated 5th ed book in case it has the super heavy walker rules.
I'll be interested in having confirmation of this... if it is true, it may convince me to actually buy the codex.
But if I need the codex AND escalation to be able to use them, I'll stick to my white dwarf rules and wait for the updated 5th ed book in case it has the super heavy walker rules.
45 seconds in the video, it clearly shows the top of the page and says something like "this section deals with the rules you'll need to field Imperial Knights.." the camera scrolls down and you can see the rules for super-heavy walker, the explosion table, etc.
I'm not buying any of this crap but thought it pertinent to point out.
Novellas aren't real books, we need to stop pretending they are and paying book price for them.
Totally agreed, sad to see GW's price hikes on these novellas. I picked up Island of Blood/Space Hulk/Assault on Black Reach back in the day for $5CAD. great reads for the pice. Then came Dark Vengence at $22! I got it in ebook format for $9CAD. now this IK book is $25CAD hb / $13CAD ebook. I think I'll pass as well.
I quite enjoyed these Assembly/painting videos from GW. While it is something you can readily get from Dakka it's quite nice to see the kit in HD and with GW talking about it.
If that just isn’t enough Knights for you, you can even field a full army of these behemoths, led by a mighty Knight Seneschal as your Warlord. The codex also includes a full explanation of how to use Super Heavy Walkers and D weapons in your games of Warhammer 40,00
The Codex isn’t the only new title available from iBooks this week. Altar of War: Imperial Knights contains six new missions to add more variety to your Warhammer 40,000 games. The missions are split into two groups: Three for armies that include a Detachment of Knights, and three for armies where Knights form the Primary Detachment.
Damn - was just going to post this myself!
No Escalation or Apoc book needed (I have both already so it doesn't affect me but it might help others decide to 'go for it').
Well it is refreshing to see a price difference between the eBook and physical codex. I am not super familiar with the eBooks so I do not know if this is a new trend.
$32 is still a lot if you're looking mainly for the rules, but then again I guess that the WDW rules will suffice for most, and if you're looking for a lot of fluff then it seems like this book might not be a bad deal.
EDIT: also good to see that it doesn't require escalation, that is certainly helpful!
krazynadechukr wrote: Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...
This is slightly incorrect. The height of the Leviathan is to the top of the torso, WITHOUT a base. The height of the Knight INCLUDES the base. I'd adjust for that.
That's maybe a 1/4" difference? Not enough to matter, though. What is clear is this: a 15mm DF Leviathan is too small to be used as a Knight straight out of the box. With conversion, it could be made taller, as well as having some embellishments on it's base to raise it another inch or so. THEN, I'm sure it will be an acceptable stand-in. But it is obvious that the Leviathan is too small, so why is this such a hot topic?
As shown, with the base, the Knight is 6.25 inches to the top of the torso (not the exhaust). Without the base, 6 inches. I'm sure there is an easy way to add some bulk to the Leviathan. Taller base, add to the bottom of the feet, choose a more upright pose, add a little in the middle, etc.
Accolade wrote:Well it is refreshing to see a price difference between the eBook and physical codex. I am not super familiar with the eBooks so I do not know if this is a new trend.
$32 is still a lot if you're looking mainly for the rules, but then again I guess that the WDW rules will suffice for most, and if you're looking for a lot of fluff then it seems like this book might not be a bad deal.
EDIT: also good to see that it doesn't require escalation, that is certainly helpful!
bubber wrote:I'll get the ebook & just note down the rules I need & take along the escalation book for superheavy walker & D weapon rules.
eBooks have always been cheaper. Or at least the ones I've looked at. However, the formatting is terrible on them. They rearrange the text down from the standard book size (around A4 size) down to ereader size, this messes up all page and image formatting so that the ebook version is around 3 or 4 times as many pages and the images are often a hindrance because they mess up the formatting.
I bought the ebook version of the Tyranid codex and the formatting annoyed me so much I ended up downloading a program to convert it to a word document and wasted most of a day converting it to double column format PDF so it was more readable. Removing the entire "picture" section because it was too much of a mess for me to waste my time fixing.
If the ebook versions were simply the regular codex in PDF or ebook format, I'd be down with that. But as it is, I don't see myself buying another ebook from GW.
Granted, if you want the rules cheaply and don't intend to actually read the book, the ebook is fine.
I could be stepping in a big steaming pile here, but looking at this pic of the official FoC for Imperial Knights, I can't really see where Chaos is not allowed to field them. They are not part of the allied slot, but have a slot of their own, thereby circumventing the allied matrix.
I think someone posted the allies matrix earlier in the thread but cannot find it and its not on the original post updated yet. Can someone repost it please? I'm curious what kind of odd looking combination of armies you can fit these into?
Slagmar wrote: I think someone posted the allies matrix earlier in the thread but cannot find it and its not on the original post updated yet. Can someone repost it please? I'm curious what kind of odd looking combination of armies you can fit these into?
Someone posted AN allies matrix, but it has nothing to do with the book, hence it isn't in the OP.
sub-zero wrote: I could be stepping in a big steaming pile here, but looking at this pic of the official FoC for Imperial Knights, I can't really see where Chaos is not allowed to field them. They are not part of the allied slot, but have a slot of their own, thereby circumventing the allied matrix.
I assume there'll be another paragraph that describes just what a Knight detachment might be and tell you who can and can't take it and if there's any caveats for taking it, the same way the BRB has a paragraph that describes the allies detachment.
So, I got my two Knights today and I was going over the instructions. Man, there is no way to build two guns out of one kit. Too many parts needed between the two. Talk about a giant "feth you". :(
Is it to the same levels of the Manticore / Deathstrike kit?
I've got to say, I can't work out whether GW are actively doing that to mess with us and make us buy multiples, or if it's simply more practical concerns eg "we have budgeted for 3 sprues and by Sigmars Hammer, it shall fit in 3 sprues."
I mean, the Space Marine Stalker / Hunter kit was pretty much the perfect way to do it. I genuinely can't fault GW at all for that kits makeup.
Breotan wrote: So, I got my two Knights today and I was going over the instructions. Man, there is no way to build two guns out of one kit. Too many parts needed between the two. Talk about a giant "feth you". :(
The only missing part is going to be the portion between the "elbow" and "wrist" which shouldn't be that hard to replicate and would let you do an easy swap at the rotary elbow.. The one that I got to play with seemed like you should be able to magnetize the wrist joint though which would be a harder magnet job but shouldn't require scratch building parts.
Compel wrote: Is it to the same levels of the Manticore / Deathstrike kit?
I've got to say, I can't work out whether GW are actively doing that to mess with us and make us buy multiples, or if it's simply more practical concerns eg "we have budgeted for 3 sprues and by Sigmars Hammer, it shall fit in 3 sprues."
I mean, the Space Marine Stalker / Hunter kit was pretty much the perfect way to do it. I genuinely can't fault GW at all for that kits makeup.
They are penny pinching like no tomorrow, you know they designed so even magnetizing it is impossible.
d-usa wrote: The only missing part is going to be the portion between the "elbow" and "wrist" which shouldn't be that hard to replicate..
No, actually.
I have the kit and the instructions in front of me and while that "arm" bit can take a magnet, the gun mount itself is shared between the melta and cannon variants. Each also has separate bits to glue on as detail for their respective gun.
Looking at the instructions, you'll need duplicates of parts 9, 20, 21, 22, 23 to make both weapons without skipping bits. Only part 9 can possibly be optional. You might be able to make press mold for 20 + 21 but there's no way you're doing it for 22+23 and having it work.
Unless some Chinese firm clones these bits illegally or Chapterhouse comes up with an alternative "adapter" then we're probably S.O.L. here.
d-usa wrote: The only missing part is going to be the portion between the "elbow" and "wrist" which shouldn't be that hard to replicate..
No, actually.
I have the kit and the instructions in front of me and while that "arm" bit can take a magnet, the gun mount itself is shared between the melta and cannon variants. Each also has separate bits to glue on as detail for their respective gun.
Looking at the instructions, you'll need duplicates of parts 9, 20, 21, 22, 23 to make both weapons without skipping bits. Only part 9 can possibly be optional. You might be able to make press mold for 20 + 21 but there's no way you're doing it for 22+23 and having it work.
Unless some Chinese firm clones these bits illegally or Chapterhouse comes up with an alternative "adapter" then we're probably S.O.L. here.
22 & 23 are shared?
If so, then yeah I see where you are coming from. I was under the impression that 22 & 23 was the housing for one of the weapons and that the other had a different housing. Which made me think that there might be a way to magnetize the joint there and slide either weapon onto the bottom of 20/21.
azreal13 wrote: I read it as Chaos cannot take knights as allies.
true story, chaos can not take knights....least not for another month or three till gw can re-release the knight kit, with additional spike spure and charge another $140 for it along with a new spikey knight codex release
azreal13 wrote: I read it as Chaos cannot take knights as allies.
true story, chaos can not take knights....least not for another month or three till gw can re-release the knight kit, with additional spike spure and charge another $140 for it along with a new spikey knight codex release
Or until I do it just to make H.B.M.C. rage at the interwebs again.
...and who are the factions on the same line as orks and necrons?
the wings and skull is the normal Space Marines as you can see in the normal core book allied chart. The flaming skull and cross bones is new, I suspect Legion of the damned.
Lockark wrote: Were did that chart come from, just wondering?
That allies chart looks like the one in the the legion of the damned codex. I'm actually working on a comprehensive chart in the style of the one in the BRB. Just have to wait until the knight codex is available for download as I imagine there is similar chart like the one posted in the knight codex.
d-usa wrote: The only missing part is going to be the portion between the "elbow" and "wrist" which shouldn't be that hard to replicate..
No, actually.
I have the kit and the instructions in front of me and while that "arm" bit can take a magnet, the gun mount itself is shared between the melta and cannon variants. Each also has separate bits to glue on as detail for their respective gun.
Looking at the instructions, you'll need duplicates of parts 9, 20, 21, 22, 23 to make both weapons without skipping bits. Only part 9 can possibly be optional. You might be able to make press mold for 20 + 21 but there's no way you're doing it for 22+23 and having it work.
Unless some Chinese firm clones these bits illegally or Chapterhouse comes up with an alternative "adapter" then we're probably S.O.L. here.
Or you know, you can cast your own parts....there's a handy tutorial on how to do it somewhere here on Dakka.
Quit being Mr. Grumpy-pants and find a way to achieve your goals. You can do it!
d-usa wrote: The only missing part is going to be the portion between the "elbow" and "wrist" which shouldn't be that hard to replicate..
No, actually.
I have the kit and the instructions in front of me and while that "arm" bit can take a magnet, the gun mount itself is shared between the melta and cannon variants. Each also has separate bits to glue on as detail for their respective gun.
Looking at the instructions, you'll need duplicates of parts 9, 20, 21, 22, 23 to make both weapons without skipping bits. Only part 9 can possibly be optional. You might be able to make press mold for 20 + 21 but there's no way you're doing it for 22+23 and having it work.
Unless some Chinese firm clones these bits illegally or Chapterhouse comes up with an alternative "adapter" then we're probably S.O.L. here.
Or you know, you can cast your own parts....there's a handy tutorial on how to do it somewhere here on Dakka.
Quit being Mr. Grumpy-pants and find a way to achieve your goals. You can do it!
Seize the day! Someone probably believes in you! No-one here, but don't let that discourage you! I think someone very like you could, given the right circumstances, probably achieve his or her fairly modest goals. Take this words and let them lift you to success on wings of sarcastic indifference!
Seize the day! Someone probably believes in you! No-one here, but don't let that discourage you! I think someone very like you could, given the right circumstances, probably achieve his or her fairly modest goals. Take this words and let them lift you to success on wings of sarcastic indifference!
Have an exalt for taking that to a place I didn't quite reach with my statement.
...and who are the factions on the same line as orks and necrons?
the wings and skull is the normal Space Marines as you can see in the normal core book allied chart. The flaming skull and cross bones is new, I suspect Legion of the damned.
Its legion of the damned. They have their own optional chart and can be primary, its kind of dumb.
d-usa wrote: The only missing part is going to be the portion between the "elbow" and "wrist" which shouldn't be that hard to replicate..
No, actually.
I have the kit and the instructions in front of me and while that "arm" bit can take a magnet, the gun mount itself is shared between the melta and cannon variants. Each also has separate bits to glue on as detail for their respective gun.
Looking at the instructions, you'll need duplicates of parts 9, 20, 21, 22, 23 to make both weapons without skipping bits. Only part 9 can possibly be optional. You might be able to make press mold for 20 + 21 but there's no way you're doing it for 22+23 and having it work.
Unless some Chinese firm clones these bits illegally or Chapterhouse comes up with an alternative "adapter" then we're probably S.O.L. here.
22 & 23 are shared?
If so, then yeah I see where you are coming from. I was under the impression that 22 & 23 was the housing for one of the weapons and that the other had a different housing. Which made me think that there might be a way to magnetize the joint there and slide either weapon onto the bottom of 20/21.
Originally what I was going to do is magnetize the "gun" part(the blast shield and weapons are a single component that can be interchanged if you want to do it) and use the sealed box bit for the Rapid Fire Battle Cannon for both the Thermal Cannon and RFBC, along with the little "fuel reservoir" bit for the Thermal Cannon that fits in between the two parts of the gun housing.
I ended up just saying "I'll have enough battle cannons from my Leman Russes that if I really want them, I can do that." and going with just the Thermal Cannon.
Allies of convenience with eldar, desperate allies with tau and dark eldar?
Oh man . They really didn't leave out much except chaos... hopefully that means chaos is getting their own variant in that not-too-distant future.
Its own variant of the legion of the damned? That chart is from the LotD codex, not the imperial knight codex, I don't think the imperial knight allies chart is out yet.
I do expect it will use the same chart though, thats also the same chart used by codex: inquisition so it seems to be the default chart of "imperial" stuff. The rumor posted earlier in this thread is a little different but still no chaos knights.
Honestly they might as well just simplify the Allies matrix and dump all Imperial Armies into one "Imperium" category. With all these different "factions" being released, the thing is just becoming a giant mess, and getting kinda redundant in a lot of cases (the reported Knight's allied matrix is almost the exact same thing as the Inquisition's and LotD's, I believe)
DJGietzen wrote: That chart is from the LotD codex, not the imperial knight codex,s.
If that's true, LotD are Battle Brothers with themselves...
Becouse they can be taken in a special and primary detachment at the same time. They did the same thing in the inquisition codex for the same reason.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TiamatRoar wrote: Honestly they might as well just simplify the Allies matrix and dump all Imperial Armies into one "Imperium" category. With all these different "factions" being released, the thing is just becoming a giant mess, and getting kinda redundant in a lot of cases (the reported Knight's allied matrix is almost the exact same thing as the Inquisition's and LotD's, I believe)
After the knights allies matrix is published I will be posting a comprehensive allies matrix pix like the one in the BRB. I sorted it differently though and put the imperial stuff together, Its not just one giant grey blob of battle brothers, there are quite a few allies of convenience in that list.
Breotan wrote: So, I got my two Knights today and I was going over the instructions. Man, there is no way to build two guns out of one kit. Too many parts needed between the two. Talk about a giant "feth you". :(
I managed to magnetise it, but it was bit of a pain. You need to magnetise several parts and do something to the cables.
If you go to around 40 minutes in this video, there is a fairly easy way to swap the weapons but you have to compromise. Probably will be the way I do it.
Sorry if this has been answered somewhere in the 100 previous pages, but does the IK codex contain all of the rules needed to play (inc the superheavy/d weapons rules) or is a second escalation book required?
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Sorry if this has been answered somewhere in the 100 previous pages, but does the IK codex contain all of the rules needed to play (inc the superheavy/d weapons rules) or is a second escalation book required?
Thanks
From the looks of things it will be completely self contained, no need for escalation. At least that's what it seems like!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Saxon wrote: If you go to around 40 minutes in this video, there is a fairly easy way to swap the weapons but you have to compromise. Probably will be the way I do it.
Yeah, makes it look pretty easy to magnetise if you don't mind having the very back section "incorrect" for one of the guns. But really, I highly doubt anyone is going to give a damn if your melta has an open section at the rear instead of those barrel things or if your battlecannon has barrels in the rear instead of an open side, and that seems to be the only thing you can't easily magnetise.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Yeah, makes it look pretty easy to magnetise if you don't mind having the very back section "incorrect" for one of the guns. But really, I highly doubt anyone is going to give a damn if your melta has an open section at the rear instead of those barrel things or if your battlecannon has barrels in the rear instead of an open side, and that seems to be the only thing you can't easily magnetise.
I just used the melta rear bits. The hollow back end of the gun just looked weird, although it is probably meant to represent some sort of case ejection system for the battle cannon.
About the image with the FoC and seperate Knights slot, don't forget that this is exactly how Formations works.
The Stormwing and Firecadre formations are outside the FoC and doesn't take an ally slot, but there is a paragraphe that says that they still need to meet the requirements of the Allies Matrix of their parent codex.
Its more then likely that there is such a paragraphe in the IK codex, if not, then its gold!
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: Sorry if this has been answered somewhere in the 100 previous pages, but does the IK codex contain all of the rules needed to play (inc the superheavy/d weapons rules) o
Crimson wrote: I just used the melta rear bits. The hollow back end of the gun just looked weird, although it is probably meant to represent some sort of case ejection system for the battle cannon.
Yeah, I agree with this.
I was looking at the kit for a while and figure I will cut off the hoses on the canister / ammo hopper bits that mount on the side and stick a magnet in those and the gun to shield area.
Pretty sure nothing will look strange after that.
The empty sections of the gun at the back I agree are strange too, I may decide to have no hoses come out of there at all for a cleaner look.
Assume this is photoshopped.
However got a knight & khorne dozer yesterday so might give it a try!
Will take a bit of time as I'm finding hard to get motivated these days.
I hate depression.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Don't know about the belly gun on the knight though.
This thread is so repetitive. 40+ pages back it was already discussed that iks are an army in itself, and are used in regular games. No escalation, no apoc, books are needed. The current WD has a battle report with knights allied with dark angels in a reg game. On GW website it says about the ik codex "Full rules for fielding a detachment of Imperial Knights as a force in (a) Warhammer 40,000 (game), or as an allied detachment to an Imperial force." And several people, or more, including me, have seen the codex in hand (last Friday at my GW store), and iks are like any other armies/ codexes, and play in regular games.....just need 40k rule book and ik codex to play them it states in start of codex....
Create the back portion of the gun, with the flamer "plug" in (where the cannon shells would eject, and leave off bits #7 & 8 (heavy stubber ammo), and place flamer fuel tanks there instead. Remove the "nub" that would connect shield to back gun portion, replace with square metal piece. Inside back of shields, there is enough room to glue a magnet. Viola! Easy, breazy, done.
I actually managed to magnetize the gun in such a way that lets me switch out all of the parts needed for each option. The front part from the shield forward is easy of course, just assemble that as a seperate piece. You'll notice that this part and the rear cap of the gun actually connect with the body in such a way that they hold the halves of the gun body together. So, I magnetised the rear cap and the shield sections to the gun body. Now when attached they hold the gun together. That lets me add or remove the plug in depending on the gun. I also magnetized the ammo hopper for the cannon and the melta canisters so they can be easily swapped out. The hoses/cables are attached to those and line up just fine. It didn't take much modification. Just one drilled hole for the ammo hopper/melta tank in the body and cut sprue inside the rear cap, gun body, and gun/shield sections to build platforms for the magnets. I can add pictures later if anyone is curious (I have to actually take pictures first).
Aedian wrote: I actually managed to magnetize the gun in such a way that lets me switch out all of the parts needed for each option. The front part from the shield forward is easy of course, just assemble that as a seperate piece. You'll notice that this part and the rear cap of the gun actually connect with the body in such a way that they hold the halves of the gun body together. So, I magnetised the rear cap and the shield sections to the gun body. Now when attached they hold the gun together. That lets me add or remove the plug in depending on the gun. I also magnetized the ammo hopper for the cannon and the melta canisters so they can be easily swapped out. The hoses/cables are attached to those and line up just fine. It didn't take much modification. Just one drilled hole for the ammo hopper/melta tank in the body and cut sprue inside the rear cap, gun body, and gun/shield sections to build platforms for the magnets. I can add pictures later if anyone is curious (I have to actually take pictures first).
Yeah, but then you are talking several parts (and different size magnets & conversion work) to "swap" every time you want to switch it. More parts to lose, yadda yadda yadda. To each their own, my way has 2 separate gun/shields that go on and off easy and fast....
I'd love to see an article on magnetizing the two weapons, when someone gets to it although that's a nice initial tip, krazynade.
I successfully sold my Salamander LE codex, and thus just picked up a Knight at the local hobby shop with the proceeds . Looks beautiful, but man, it really is only 3 sprues!
Medium of Death wrote: Perhaps there is a caveat on the page where the Allies Matrix is?
I don't really see the point in arguing about this until the codex is out. FWIW I think Chaos should be able to get them.
Or at least something equal to it anyway.
On the super heavy walker front they already have LORDS OF SKULLS and from forge world have greater brass scorpions. So they have something roughly equal to them and also better than them already available.
Edit: Doh fixed that...did not mean helbrutes by a mile.
Medium of Death wrote: Perhaps there is a caveat on the page where the Allies Matrix is?
I don't really see the point in arguing about this until the codex is out. FWIW I think Chaos should be able to get them.
Or at least something equal to it anyway.
On the super heavy walker front they already have helbrutes and from forge world have greater brass scorpions. So they have something roughly equal to them and also better than them already available.
Skriker
Errr, what? Helbrutes are nowhere near Super Heavy Walkers. They are regular walkers, crazy, overcosted and squishy.
Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
krazynadechukr wrote:This thread is so repetitive. 40+ pages back it was already discussed that iks are an army in itself, and are used in regular games. No escalation, no apoc, books are needed. The current WD has a battle report with knights allied with dark angels in a reg game. On GW website it says about the ik codex "Full rules for fielding a detachment of Imperial Knights as a force in (a) Warhammer 40,000 (game), or as an allied detachment to an Imperial force." And several people, or more, including me, have seen the codex in hand (last Friday at my GW store), and iks are like any other armies/ codexes, and play in regular games.....just need 40k rule book and ik codex to play them it states in start of codex....
I may have missed it, but 40+ pages ago I believe it was "rumour", now we actually have a picture from GW showing the superheavy rules in the IK codex.
Aedian wrote:I actually managed to magnetize the gun in such a way that lets me switch out all of the parts needed for each option. The front part from the shield forward is easy of course, just assemble that as a seperate piece. You'll notice that this part and the rear cap of the gun actually connect with the body in such a way that they hold the halves of the gun body together. So, I magnetised the rear cap and the shield sections to the gun body. Now when attached they hold the gun together. That lets me add or remove the plug in depending on the gun. I also magnetized the ammo hopper for the cannon and the melta canisters so they can be easily swapped out. The hoses/cables are attached to those and line up just fine. It didn't take much modification. Just one drilled hole for the ammo hopper/melta tank in the body and cut sprue inside the rear cap, gun body, and gun/shield sections to build platforms for the magnets. I can add pictures later if anyone is curious (I have to actually take pictures first).
I did consider that, however I think that would leave you with a seam where the 2 halves of the gun meet. If you just magnetised the front and the ammo, you wouldn't be left with any unsightly joins that you can't hide.
TiamatRoar wrote: Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
If someone were to take a knight army and disallow me from using a super heavy of my own, I would move to a different table.
TiamatRoar wrote: Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
If someone were to take a knight army and disallow me from using a super heavy of my own, I would move to a different table.
If I had a Knight army I wouldn't disallow you using Super heavies... however I think Knights are more balanced for a non-escalation game than most other super heavies.
TiamatRoar wrote: Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
Escalation is regular 40k.
If you don't like Knights, don't play against them.
Medium of Death wrote: Perhaps there is a caveat on the page where the Allies Matrix is?
I don't really see the point in arguing about this until the codex is out. FWIW I think Chaos should be able to get them.
Or at least something equal to it anyway.
On the super heavy walker front they already have LORDS OF SKULLS and from forge world have greater brass scorpions. So they have something roughly equal to them and also better than them already available.
Edit: Doh fixed that...did not mean helbrutes by a mile.
Skriker
That's lovely...if you like Khorne. Khorne bores the crap out of me.
TiamatRoar wrote: Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
If someone were to take a knight army and disallow me from using a super heavy of my own, I would move to a different table.
A lot of tournaments ban escalation and stronghold assault but don't ban any 40K codices. If you'd play in any of them you'd forfeit a game and wait 3 to 4 hours for the next game to start.
I see plenty reasons for people who play Knights to not allow lords of war. The most obvious one is of course that all the competitive lords of war take a royal dump on Knights.
TiamatRoar wrote: Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
If someone were to take a knight army and disallow me from using a super heavy of my own, I would move to a different table.
A lot of tournaments ban escalation and stronghold assault but don't ban any 40K codices. If you'd play in any of them you'd forfeit a game and wait 3 to 4 hours for the next game to start.
I see plenty reasons for people who play Knights to not allow lords of war. The most obvious one is of course that all the competitive lords of war take a royal dump on Knights.
i think this is all going to depend on RAW in the codex, from the white dwarf a knight is a super heavy, which "tournament" 40k doesnt have a slot for. However if the codex gives a way around that then it will be hard to justify knights not being usable
TiamatRoar wrote: Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
If someone were to take a knight army and disallow me from using a super heavy of my own, I would move to a different table.
A lot of tournaments ban escalation and stronghold assault but don't ban any 40K codices. If you'd play in any of them you'd forfeit a game and wait 3 to 4 hours for the next game to start.
I see plenty reasons for people who play Knights to not allow lords of war. The most obvious one is of course that all the competitive lords of war take a royal dump on Knights.
i think this is all going to depend on RAW in the codex, from the white dwarf a knight is a super heavy, which "tournament" 40k doesnt have a slot for. However if the codex gives a way around that then it will be hard to justify knights not being usable
I've been to tournaments for 20 years and I've never been in one that specified how many infantry units, or tanks, etc. you're allowed to take. A super-heavy walker is a unit classification, just like 'jump infantry'. The rules for using super-heavy walkers are found in the Codex: Imperial Knights, and in Escalation.
I think you completely missed my point. Knights will most definitely be allowed everywhere unless the TO specifically wants to ban the codex. However, allowing Knights isn't the same as allowing Warhound Titans. The latter requires escalation, and the former does not. You ban escalation and you've banned every single super-heavy in the game except the Imperial Knights.
xole wrote: If someone were to take a knight army and disallow me from using a super heavy of my own, I would move to a different table.
Well if you weren't fulfilling the minimum requirements to bring a super-heavy, why should they let you? It appears that Knights don't have any additional requirements on them (2000+ points, separate detachment, any of that) whereas most other super-heavies have one or more conditions required before you can field one.
xole wrote: If someone were to take a knight army and disallow me from using a super heavy of my own, I would move to a different table.
Well if you weren't fulfilling the minimum requirements to bring a super-heavy, why should they let you? It appears that Knights don't have any additional requirements on them (2000+ points, separate detachment, any of that) whereas most other super-heavies have one or more conditions required before you can field one.
What requirements are those and where are they printed? What's the requirement for fielding a Revenant Titan, other than having 900 points to spare?
Went to my local GW today to get paints, greenstuff, and imperial placement (using 1 part for my IK to be stomping on, selling the rest on ebay)... Anyway, there was a game going, between two adults I might add, and the one player had 1 IK, and the Blood Angels player just kept mumbling "That shouldn't even be allowed in regular games." Over and over....
krazynadechukr wrote: Went to my local GW today to get paints, greenstuff, and imperial placement (using 1 part for my IK to be stomping on, selling the rest on ebay)... Anyway, there was a game going, between two adults I might add, and the one player had 1 IK, and the Blood Angels player just kept mumbling "That shouldn't even be allowed in regular games." Over and over....
...so he was crazy? lol
The IK isn't really that unbalanced. Though it might change peoples' army lists to include more melta, more things that can rack up a lot of glances and more AP1.
krazynadechukr wrote: Went to my local GW today to get paints, greenstuff, and imperial placement (using 1 part for my IK to be stomping on, selling the rest on ebay)... Anyway, there was a game going, between two adults I might add, and the one player had 1 IK, and the Blood Angels player just kept mumbling "That shouldn't even be allowed in regular games." Over and over....
...so he was crazy? lol
The IK isn't really that unbalanced. Though it might change peoples' army lists to include more melta, more things that can rack up a lot of glances and more AP1.
Surely, if this dude was just THAT unprepared for an IK, maybe he should have opted against playing that particular game? Seems like the adult choice, to me.
krazynadechukr wrote: Went to my local GW today to get paints, greenstuff, and imperial placement (using 1 part for my IK to be stomping on, selling the rest on ebay)... Anyway, there was a game going, between two adults I might add, and the one player had 1 IK, and the Blood Angels player just kept mumbling "That shouldn't even be allowed in regular games." Over and over....
...so he was crazy? lol
The IK isn't really that unbalanced. Though it might change peoples' army lists to include more melta, more things that can rack up a lot of glances and more AP1.
Yeah i really don't get this "they shouldn't be even allowed in regular games" . From what i have seen they are pretty balanced with Wraith Knights and Riptides. So strange...you can probably go back last year and find the same kind of posts regarding those models too. I came to the conclusion years ago that the vast majority of people will find something wrong with just about everything. First it is "40K has become stagnant, i want something fresh. I want more codexes!" Now it is complaining about too many new models changing the game every few months and too many codexes!
ironicsilence wrote: Maybe at the start of the game it was more, hey can we try this out? Then by the middle of the game he figured out he couldnt hurt it with his army
Which is silly. Because A: Your army gets to fight a giant robot. How are you not having fun? B: It's not as though it's secretly immune to anti-tank weapons. You pretty much need to bring the weapons you'd expect to need against a giant robot.
hard to bring weapons to fight against a giant robot if you arent expecting to fight one, im assuming this was a random pick up game, perhaps the BA player didnt have a lot of anti tank models to use, though I agree on the fun part, then again if your getting curb stomped, thats not really fun
I'm sorry but that game was just pure fail on the part of the BA player. ANY BA player that knows what he's doing brings a ton of meltagun assault squads. That one IK should have been popped by turn 3.
So, I'm sitting here looking at my half-built Knight and the more I stare at it, the more disappointed I am with the monopose legs and feet. The "stomping over terrain" action pose I was hoping to do is going to be a pain in the rump. Not insurmountable, just headache inducing.
Therion wrote: What requirements are those and where are they printed? What's the requirement for fielding a Revenant Titan, other than having 900 points to spare?
I said most, not all. Furthermore the question on "legality" remains with Escalation, which includes the Revenant. If GW ever answers that question (have they answered that question?) then obviously we'll know.
Breotan wrote: So, I'm sitting here looking at my half-built Knight and the more I stare at it, the more disappointed I am with the monopose legs and feet. The "stomping over terrain" action pose I was hoping to do is going to be a pain in the rump. Not insurmountable, just headache inducing.
I think if I were going to majorly repose the legs, I'd want something to replace the pistons. Really can't be bothered spending half my life adjusting all the piston lengths, lol.
I just used a bunch of 3mm magnets that I had around. This picture shows everything disassembled and you can see the magnets in on all of the individual pieces. I'm only showing the melta pieces, but the cannon pieces are the same.
Here you can see the tail end of the gun body with the two halves put together. The magnet is attached to one half, but the end cap holds the halves together on that end.
Here you can see the front end. Basically the same as the tail end.
And now the gun completely assembled.
I still have some clean up to do. As someone mentioned, there is potentially a visible seem on the gun body that I'll have to work on eliminating (hopefully). I may also add another magnet to the hinge on the gun body where it attaches to the arm so that it remains in a more fixed position.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I'm sorry but that game was just pure fail on the part of the BA player. ANY BA player that knows what he's doing brings a ton of meltagun assault squads. That one IK should have been popped by turn 3.
Besides if he lacked the tools to pop it, that's not a problem with the IK itself.
If a SM brings a Land raider into a game and his opponent only has S7 or worse weapons that LR could conceviably table his opponent. I don't think anyone has claimed LRs are OP.
Breotan wrote: So, I'm sitting here looking at my half-built Knight and the more I stare at it, the more disappointed I am with the monopose legs and feet. The "stomping over terrain" action pose I was hoping to do is going to be a pain in the rump. Not insurmountable, just headache inducing.
I think if I were going to majorly repose the legs, I'd want something to replace the pistons. Really can't be bothered spending half my life adjusting all the piston lengths, lol.
The hydraulics are easy, just drill out and insert styrene rod. It's the hips and feet that'll be the biggest problems.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: I'm sorry but that game was just pure fail on the part of the BA player. ANY BA player that knows what he's doing brings a ton of meltagun assault squads. That one IK should have been popped by turn 3.
Any BA player that knows what he's doing doesn't bring a ton of meltagun assault squads, as they'll get rolled by almost everyone else.
Most armies can gear up to take down one Knight during the course of a game. However problems arise when people take multiples, say four in 1500pt games. Only a few armies can gear up to deal with that, but doing so leaves them vulnerable to nearly every other army out there.
Anyhoo, any news yet on how the "Imperial Knight Detachment" works yet ? Is the Knight in that detachment a scoring and/or denial unit ?
krazynadechukr wrote: Went to my local GW today to get paints, greenstuff, and imperial placement (using 1 part for my IK to be stomping on, selling the rest on ebay)... Anyway, there was a game going, between two adults I might add, and the one player had 1 IK, and the Blood Angels player just kept mumbling "That shouldn't even be allowed in regular games." Over and over....
Damn, imagine the money and time you spent on getting your IK to the table, maybe for it's very first outing, and your opponent straight up harshes your buzz like that. They really should have gone over the rules properly with each other before starting their game. At least that way the BA player could mix up his list, or the two could swap opponents with another pair.
That said, there has to be more to the story than we're being told. A single IK is still only one model, most scenarios can't really be won of the back of a single model, especially considering blood angels tend to have a few ways to quickly deliver anti-armour.
Ah, oaky. I also play against these 2 players, and one was doing his Iron Warriors army (with IK) against the BA player. BA player just meant the Iron Warriors player shouldn't even have one, but it was a test game, fjust for fun game. His mumblings were just to that fact. He'd face an IK (or several) in an official list (after the codex comes out, we will know what that is).....
TiamatRoar wrote: Yea, but Lord of Skulls and Brass Scorpions can only be taken in Escalation and take up the Lord of War slot, unlike Knights that are their own normal 40k army.
I would think it would be a simple exchange here:
"I would like to use a knight detachment."
"I am fine with that as long as you don't mind my lord of war detachment".
That leaves two paths: Either the original player is fine with the lord of war detachement and both get their big boys, or they aren't and neither get their big boys.
Knight detachments are just as "optional" as lord of war detachments from escalation since both are considered "normal 40k" now.
Lord Scythican wrote: Yeah i really don't get this "they shouldn't be even allowed in regular games" . From what i have seen they are pretty balanced with Wraith Knights and Riptides. So strange...you can probably go back last year and find the same kind of posts regarding those models too. I came to the conclusion years ago that the vast majority of people will find something wrong with just about everything. First it is "40K has become stagnant, i want something fresh. I want more codexes!" Now it is complaining about too many new models changing the game every few months and too many codexes!
The primary difference is that riptides and wraith knights are not super heavies. Super heavies are much more resilient than standard walkers just as super heavy tanks are more resilient than standard tanks.
Not everyone who is unhappy seeing knights in every game is also on the "40k has become stagnant" bandwagon. I see knights not needing a lord of war detachment to be as stupid as GW adding flyers to the game and not immediately faqing every codex to include some valid flyer or flyer defense options beyond a stupid ADL with quad gun. They make a paradigm shifting change in the rules and once again give only certain forces in the game access to that new ability. It just makes people more annoyed than anything else. This will annoy people who have no access to an IK detachment in their army, and will annoy people who do have them and find their knights excluded from tournies and the like or people just refusing to play against them because of the knights.
Just finished watching the build/paint videos from GW. Pretty cool. I might have to use some of their techniques instead of my "airbrush everything" one.
Therion wrote: A lot of tournaments ban escalation and stronghold assault but don't ban any 40K codices. If you'd play in any of them you'd forfeit a game and wait 3 to 4 hours for the next game to start.
I see plenty reasons for people who play Knights to not allow lords of war. The most obvious one is of course that all the competitive lords of war take a royal dump on Knights.
And it would be how difficult for tournement organizers to add the Imperial Knight Codex to their ban list? Not difficult at all. Of course people who play knights aren't going to want to see lords of war. That takes away the advantage of being the only force on the table with super heavy walkers.
Lord Scythican wrote: Yeah i really don't get this "they shouldn't be even allowed in regular games" . From what i have seen they are pretty balanced with Wraith Knights and Riptides. So strange...you can probably go back last year and find the same kind of posts regarding those models too. I came to the conclusion years ago that the vast majority of people will find something wrong with just about everything. First it is "40K has become stagnant, i want something fresh. I want more codexes!" Now it is complaining about too many new models changing the game every few months and too many codexes!
The primary difference is that riptides and wraith knights are not super heavies. Super heavies are much more resilient than standard walkers just as super heavy tanks are more resilient than standard tanks.
Aren't they also 'Monstrous Creatures' and thus also more resilient than 'standard walkers'?
"Standard walkers" aren't very good at all in 6th...
nareik wrote: Damn, imagine the money and time you spent on getting your IK to the table, maybe for it's very first outing, and your opponent straight up harshes your buzz like that. They really should have gone over the rules properly with each other before starting their game. At least that way the BA player could mix up his list, or the two could swap opponents with another pair.
That said, there has to be more to the story than we're being told. A single IK is still only one model, most scenarios can't really be won of the back of a single model, especially considering blood angels tend to have a few ways to quickly deliver anti-armour.
When I pick and pack an army for play at the local store, or should say, "when I USED to do so", I didn't have a bunch of extras to mix up my list if someone dropped a surprise on me that I was completely unpreprared for. A single IK would not be too bad, but to suddenly find oneself facing 5 of them with an army that was maybe expect to see at most a single armored unit on the other side of the table and it could be a serious problem. Also depending on the day of the week you may be stuck playing who you are playing because there are no other players out there to swap with.
There is ALWAYS more to the story than you're being told, no matter the topic. Yes a single IK is only one model, but some players have a problem with ignoring that big obvious threat on the table. I really like facing opponents who buy a big obvious target and expect it to win the game for them, because you can easily skirt around it, isolate it or feed it smaller bites of your army while you deal with everything else they have. Soon the game is over, you have won and the big obvious target did next to nothing the whole game.
I can't see Knights being a problem for most tournament lists. For that reason alone, if nothing else, I don't think these will be banned... it also really helps that all the rules to use them are in the codex and not in Escalation.
These may be solved by the updated rulebook in May, anyway. The release is too close (under a month) to AdeptiCon for inclusion, and the next really big tournies will have time to see how things shake out before having to decide, I think.
Awesome-sauce. My only niggle is that the guns don't look very orkish to me. But to be fair there's no equivalent yet, unless they used bits from the Stompas to replace the weapons??
Got the dex, here's a rule summary, save yourself the $50.
The knight detachment is separate from allies 1-3 can be taken, Do not score
Cannot ally with Chaos, Daemons, Crons, Orks or Nids.
Allies of convenience with Eldar and Grey Knights
Desperate allies with Dark Eldar and Tau
Imperial Knight Armies
These rules are for the primary detachment of knights:
Knights are scoring and one is the warlord.
Knightly ranks
"Players that want to include knights apparent or seneschals in their games must roll a dice for each of their knights errant or knights paladin (other then the warlord) at the same time as warlord traits and refer the knightly rank table below to see what the rank that knight has"
1: Knight apparent. Subtract 1 from the knights Ws and Bs. in addition a apparents ion shield confers a 5+ invulnerable save instead of the normal 4+
2-5: Knight. Standard rules
6: Seneschal. Add 1 to the knights Ws and Bs. In addition a knight seneschals ion shield confers a 3+ invulnerable save insteaf of the normal 4+
Warlord table:
The warlord is always a Seneschal
1. Master of the Hunt: All friendly knights in 12" add +1 to run or charge range
2. Fearsome Reputation: Enemy units within 12" of the warlord use the lowest leadership value
3. Master of the Joust: The Knight warlord rerolls failed to hit rolls in any assault phase in which he successfully charges into close combat
4. Master of the Field: The Warlord up to D3 friendly knights have outflank
5: Master of Siege: The warlord and all friendly knights add +1 to rolls they make on the building damage table
6: Indomitable: The warlord has "It will not die"
ironicsilence wrote: So can knights be taken in games not using the escalation rules?
Yes.
A quick read through the various entries for how to use them in games as a Primary Detactchment or Allie only refer to the BRB. No mention of escalation is in those paragraphs. The IK rules seem to be independent of Escalation, and have all rules for running them in the book. There is no need for the Apoc or Escalation book at all.
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that Chaos cannot take these as an IK attachment..... I can understand Nids, orks, and other zenos army's sure, but Chaos should have access to these knights. It just doesn't make sense.......
I assume that Chaos knights will have very different weapon options & be possessed so have lower BS. Also the iconography will be different & maybe even be similar in style to the new Hellbrutes.
ironicsilence wrote: I'd guess a Codex Chaos knights in the future. Cant think of any reason why there wouldnt be.
I wouldn't hold my breath. None of the 'new' imperial things have been mirrored by chaos in a long long time. If anything the pic in white dwarf of an imperial knight standing next to a lord of skulls cements that GW sees one as the counter point to the other. That is about as close as I think we are going to get.
Thing is, skulldozer requires escalation while knights don't, so chaos players probably won't buy skull dozers anyways whether they can buy knights or not unless they are willing to buy and play escalation or Apoc (alongside other players willing to play Escalation or Apoc)
I think you'll find people are just as willing to play against a skulldozer as they are against an imperial knight. Those that refuse the to play against the former will likely refuse to play against the latter.
Landcruiserlarry is to be lauded for a mighty fine Ork Stompa.... errr... Lootaknight!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DJGietzen wrote: I think you'll find people are just as willing to play against a skulldozer as they are against an imperial knight. Those that refuse the to play against the former will likely refuse to play against the latter.
If someone is willing to spend $300 and paint the crazy thing people can at least play against it... what a letdown for the owner of the model. I still have sticker shock on that thing so cannot bring myself to buy it.
The finger pistons on their facebook page look a little weedy, but they are exposed like the rest of GW kits have exposed critical components so they fit in nicely. Plus it's the best use of a dessert spoon I've seen since dessert .
ironicsilence wrote: So can knights be taken in games not using the escalation rules?
Yes.
A quick read through the various entries for how to use them in games as a Primary Detactchment or Allie only refer to the BRB. No mention of escalation is in those paragraphs. The IK rules seem to be independent of Escalation, and have all rules for running them in the book. There is no need for the Apoc or Escalation book at all.
Thanks for that, mikhaila! And Ravenous D for this thread:
For those who might want to know the allies list for the knight before they buy the codex.... No shocks here. The Grey Knights thing was not expected but understandable.
That is because of the lore standard imperial allies of the Grey Knights are sent to a prison or killed after a deamon incursion so the "truth" is kept from the masses.
it's 150mm high (ie about 6") & costs £39.99 + P&P (unless you spend over £75).
Therefore for the price of one GW knight you can get 2 stand-ins & enough left to get a large McD's meal!
link
Sorry couldn't get the url of the larger picture - you'll have to visit the site for a better picture.
What I like is that it has a chainsword & a gun which could easily be considered a thermal cannon. + it's cheaper than a DF walker.
Don't know what the quality is like though but might have to pick up a couple.
I think that Erradicator thing has conversion potential. It seems like an incompletely done model with the way the detail is absent on the torso half but that works in its favor for converting. Slannesh was the only Chaos faction to get something specifically called a Knight and you really need to consider the shape of the Slanneshi Knights... You can't see it in this picture but that round part of the torso buldges out a good amount. All the slannesh knights have rounded elongated torso with weapons mounted to several protruded fins.
Purely my opinions but I'd guess that Khorne's mower in addition to being based on a number of Khornate and knight like epic vehicles was also based partially on the one tracked warden knight mini.
I think the bulbous a squat legs of the other two Warden knight minis are reminiscent of Nurgle. The long legged animal/bird headed lancers strike me as Tzneetch.
People wanted to see the difference between the 15mm dreamforge levaithan and the GW knight titan.
I got a friends knight and took a couple of photos, made this account to post them here for you guys.
It's not a real fair test as the knight is on a base, and has been heightened by some rubble on top of the base too. Aside from that there's quite a substantial difference in height, and more than anything just general bulk.
As somebody that just makes models and doesn't play, I much prefer the 15mm dreamforge leviathan, aside from having full pose ability in the legs, I much prefer the appearance, and I think that with a bit of conversion it will fit into the more realistic forgeworld titans. There is a definite difference in style of the mars forgeworld stuff and the games workshop knight, with the knight fitting much more into the current games workshop plastic lineup. For example I dislike the busy paneled style of the carapace, which contrasts the smooth crapaces of the the mars style titans. I also think that the edging of the armour plates is inconsistent with the forgeworld pieces. Lastly the cost is huge, it's comparable to the larger version of the dreamforge titan, or 3 of the smaller dreamforge titans, fielding a small army of slightly less large dreamforge models is a lot more wallet friendly.
Despite that though I think it's still an impressive kit. The detail is crisp and there's lots of it, I'm also intrigued what forgeworld will do with it. The inclusion of a separate hatch place clearly implies a cockpit kit, I think they'll also do sets of legion specific armour and weaponry, which will be fantastic.
Anyway, that's my opinion, not that it matters to anybody but me.
I quite like the shoulder pads on the 15mm Leviathan. I wonder how well they'd fit on the Knight? Obviously they'd be smaller, but it might give an interesting look. Less ornate, more practical factory finish for a Mechanicus force.
I really like the LED set up in the eyes as seen in this video.
So, with the fluff now officially that the Chaos oriented "Knight" houses are functionally defunct, with only rare, completely demonically possessed "Daemon Knights" out there, my doubts about GW ever giving enough of a crap to even rip us for the cost of a Daemon Knights codex are at an all time high.
"We gave you the Khornemower, be happy and give us money!"
shade1313 wrote: So, with the fluff now officially that the Chaos oriented "Knight" houses are functionally defunct, with only rare, completely demonically possessed "Daemon Knights" out there, my doubts about GW ever giving enough of a crap to even rip us for the cost of a Daemon Knights codex are at an all time high.
"We gave you the Khornemower, be happy and give us money!"
Yeah, and I am still holding my breath that my loyal IG army can use helldrakes... Where's my loyal version of the helldrake GW? And why can't my guard use a carnifax! ARGH! wishin' 'n' fishin'
What do you mean GW! Your not going to make an (elder/dark elder/chaos/imperial guard/space marine/tyranid/necron/sisters/inquisitor/mechanicum/grey knights/etc...) crossover model usable for any and every army? Oh, the the stupidity!
It strikes me that Chaos Knight houses are probably much looser associations probably maintained mostly to ensure the ability to repair the archane technologies. Individual Knights probably strike out on their own more often and fall victim to the same corruptions that other agents of chaos do.
GW is the sort who'd turn it around and say its that very technology and corruption of the Knight systems by an Obliterator like technovirus that's lead to their insanity and disturbed behavior.
shade1313 wrote: So, with the fluff now officially that the Chaos oriented "Knight" houses are functionally defunct, with only rare, completely demonically possessed "Daemon Knights" out there, my doubts about GW ever giving enough of a crap to even rip us for the cost of a Daemon Knights codex are at an all time high.
"We gave you the Khornemower, be happy and give us money!"
Yeah, and I am still holding my breath that my loyal IG army can use helldrakes... Where's my loyal version of the helldrake GW? And why can't my guard use a carnifax! ARGH! wishin' 'n' fishin'
What do you mean GW! Your not going to make an (elder/dark elder/chaos/imperial guard/space marine/tyranid/necron/sisters/inquisitor/mechanicum/grey knights/etc...) crossover model usable for any and every army? Oh, the the stupidity!
The idea of chaos knights are almost as old as the idea of knights.
Also personally if they are doing a Imperail Knight book, I want to see books for Chaos and Eldar kights, with rules and modles. It's a cool long and established history in the fluff.
If they did retcon that chaos knights aren't realy a thing in the fluff, this is prety upsetting in all honesty.
A number of Knight Houses came to the worship of the Ruinous Powers during the Horus Heresy, and supported the Warmaster Horus and the Dark Mechanicus in their war against the False Emperor. When the Heresy ended, these Traitor Houses presumably fled into the Eye of Terror alongside the rest of the Forces of Chaos, and remain active to this day, now twisted and changed by the mutating power of the Warp.
aka_mythos wrote: GW is the sort who'd turn it around and say its that very technology and corruption of the Knight systems by an Obliterator like technovirus that's lead to their insanity and disturbed behavior.
That would be an interesting twist for sure, it would make the mind control easier once the machine spirit has been subjected to this.
BrookM wrote: While the fluff more or less states a lot of gakky gak, there are still traitor houses out there.
edit.
gakky writing aside, it does feature some kickass art:
Spoiler:
That is a pretty great piece of artwork, but yikes! I would not want to be anywhere near the vicinity of that parade--or really anywhere that the Imperium was involved in for that matter. Though I can't help but chuckle at the thought of the skull-faced woman leading a Knight down Mainstreet as Sousa-esque band music clamors in their wake.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: That is a pretty great piece of artwork, but yikes! I would not want to be anywhere near the vicinity of that parade--or really anywhere that the Imperium was involved in for that matter. Though I can't help but chuckle at the thought of the skull-faced woman leading a Knight down Mainstreet as Sousa-esque band music clamors in their wake.
It certainly does crank up the body horror by a few notches, but you know, 40k needs more of this alien, outlandish and scary art, to really hammer home that this isn't our time.
BrookM wrote: While the fluff more or less states a lot of gakky gak, there are still traitor houses out there.
edit.
gakky writing aside, it does feature some kickass art:
Spoiler:
That is a pretty great piece of artwork, but yikes! I would not want to be anywhere near the vicinity of that parade--or really anywhere that the Imperium was involved in for that matter. Though I can't help but chuckle at the thought of the skull-faced woman leading a Knight down Mainstreet as Sousa-esque band music clamors in their wake.
Looks like something out of Brazil's Carnival! Only with less cleavage.
It certainly does crank up the body horror by a few notches, but you know, 40k needs more of this alien, outlandish and scary art, to really hammer home that this isn't our time.
I couldn't agree more! Seeing these images of "every day life" in the Imperium is what really fuels my imagination for the setting--more so than images of warfare conducted on an epic scale.
As I am building my Knight right now, I can't help but wonder how cool it would be to have a nicely done camo theme on a knight. But I might save that idea for another one. Currently doing a Templar themed Knight.
EmperorsChampion wrote: As I am building my Knight right now, I can't help but wonder how cool it would be to have a nicely done camo theme on a knight. But I might save that idea for another one. Currently doing a Templar themed Knight.
Seeing one with camo would work well, especially if you leave select panels in the "original" garish bright colours of the house it belongs to.
BrookM wrote: While the fluff more or less states a lot of gakky gak, there are still traitor houses out there.
edit.
gakky writing aside, it does feature some kickass art:
Spoiler:
That is a pretty great piece of artwork, but yikes! I would not want to be anywhere near the vicinity of that parade--or really anywhere that the Imperium was involved in for that matter. Though I can't help but chuckle at the thought of the skull-faced woman leading a Knight down Mainstreet as Sousa-esque band music clamors in their wake.
Swapping some of the back arms/claws with the 'foot" tentacles/dentrites to make the claw feet, adding skulls to the ends of some of the now back mounted tentacles/dentrites and adding the sword gets you pretty close to the GW illustration...
move and you(plural) want to justify that to yourselves and everyone else. "Oh I'm not treating a buddy like crap, I'm just following the rules innit guv, them's the breaks, more than my job's worth etc etc".
who still want to play 
yup! 
) without using their (
and like look of DF model 4.) DF wanters don't go to 
... unfair cover for the shorty otherwise.
that is the 28mm one...8.5" tall & $96 - $120 usd 
. Looks beautiful, but man, it really is only 3 sprues!
