After having a look I cannot find the format that these are designed to be fielded in.

Not standard 40k surely, it's Escalation or Apoc right?

It does say you can take three to six in a primary detachment, surely not of 40k though right?

It says Super-Heavy Walker as unit type, that means Apocalypse or Escalation.

Initially I thought that, though the only rule in print is you need a primary detachment.

It even states "this weapon is one of the best in Warhammer 40k" , no mention of Apoc or Escalation, just 40k.

its legal 40k... just as everything else now, only house rules prevent it from being uses in any normal 40k game

40k applies to the regular 40k as well as all expansions.

Obviously, "this weapon is one of the best in Warhammer 40k" is just silly fluff text, considering that for the same points you can get two defilers and fire the same two shots.

It says you can take 3-6 in a primary detachment.

If you actually read the WD it certainly comes across that they are intended to be used in regular games of 40k.

It mentions that they have rules found in the Escalation and Apocalypse rulebooks but doesn't mention those two variants again.

It also mentions being fielded as an allied detachment, if it were escalation this would instead say Lord of War right? As written they seem to be a Primary or Allied detachment for regular 40k.

Here's the actual wording from the WD

Imperial Knights can be fielded as an army in their own right, in a primary detachment of three to six Imperial Knights.
They may also be taken as allies; you can include up to three Imperial Knights as a single allied detachment for each
primary detachment in your army, you'll also note that Imperial Knights Use D weapons and the Invincible Behemoth
special rules - details of these can be found in both Apocalypse and Escalation.

Regular games of 40k a go go.

Yeah this is what struck me, the only requirement for fielding them is a limit of 3 per primary detachment.

So D weapons meet regular 40k?

D weapons are not as OP as every cries about...

boo hoo... we now have a counter to ++ saves and death stars... welcome to the rest of our world where there is at least one thing that takes our models off on a 2+ regardless

the super heavies them selves are laughable to kill for how many points they are, and while titans are just too big for normal games, they go down quite easy to any sustained anti armour fire, and especially in close combat. that plus the prohibitive pts cost make them actually decently balanced for normal 40k.

these knights fit in just fine, awesome models and in a good middle ground power level wise

D weapons are official 40k, that they no longer require a Lord of war slot is just fine... these are only CC D weapons anyways.

What if i told you the knights don't have the D (ranged that is)

Not sure how to answer this question.

Escalation and stronghold assault are not optional rules, they are as valid as death from the skies flyer rules, any codex, the rulebook..

so standard 40k format?

in the escalation book most Lord of War choices are 1 unit

the knights can come in units of 1, 3 or 5 so I am guessing they will either be an ally faction, or a dataslate.

Considering you can do something like drop 5 sternguard in a pod and fire 5 melta shots into its back, which will probably hit 4 times and with 8+2d6 pen rolls probably pen 4 times at less than half the cost of the knight, you will probably kill a knight pretty easily if you take about 2 minutes during deployment or movement to think about what to do. Just remember when they blow its usually a D explosion.

 easysauce wrote:
D weapons are not as OP as every cries about...

boo hoo... we now have a counter to ++ saves and death stars... welcome to the rest of our world where there is at least one thing that takes our models off on a 2+ regardless

the super heavies them selves are laughable to kill for how many points they are, and while titans are just too big for normal games, they go down quite easy to any sustained anti armour fire, and especially in close combat. that plus the prohibitive pts cost make them actually decently balanced for normal 40k.

these knights fit in just fine, awesome models and in a good middle ground power level wise

D weapons are official 40k, that they no longer require a Lord of war slot is just fine... these are only CC D weapons anyways.

Yup The D is in 40k regular now.

Ive been running my Stompa in a campaign my groups been doing for several weeks now....D slapped a Baneblade,krunched lots of Umies and just recently was taken down turn one by massed Necrons ...got too headstrong on that one and deserved it,lol

Melee D is fine in normal 40k pretty much all Superheavys seem to be fine...HOWEVER the Revenant Titan does not belong with its movement and shooting abilities it should be apoc only.

They are going to be their own kind of faction in fact 3 diffrent kinds.. according to the digital version facebook GW have.
they said something along the lines will you have a imperium, the mechanicum or a rogue freeblade?

blaktoof wrote:

Escalation and stronghold assault are not optional rules, they are as valid as death from the skies flyer rules, any codex, the rulebook..

From Stonrghold

"The following is therefore a list of optional rules updates that we recommend that you incorporate into your games of Warhammer 40,000 when using fortifications and buildings. You should agree with your opponent before the battle begins whether to use some, or all of these updates."

There is always a choice.

Uptopdownunder wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

Escalation and stronghold assault are not optional rules, they are as valid as death from the skies flyer rules, any codex, the rulebook..

From Stonrghold

"The following is therefore a list of optional rules updates that we recommend that you incorporate into your games of Warhammer 40,000 when using fortifications and buildings. You should agree with your opponent before the battle begins whether to use some, or all of these updates."

There is always a choice.

The quote you reference is only pertaining to the updated building rules, which regard moving into out of buildings, assaulting buildings, and shooting into out of buildings.

the actual rules for the fortifications, and their weapons are in different sections before and after and none of them are listed as optional.

There was another book in the past "Death from the Skies" contained in it was 1 section of optional rules, dogfighting. The weapons and rules for the fliers therein were not optional.


so yes you have a choice to optionally use the updated building rules in stronghold assault, but RAW the rules for the fortifications and weapons in stronghold are not optional.

Of course this is just a game and anything can be optional, we could say the rules for cover are optional because they take too long if we agreed to play etc.

IKs are legal 40k. Size wise they are around the eldar wraith knight level and only have a D str melee weapon, the reason they have those is primarily for antisuper heavy combat. They were in epic I believe and are essentially titan infantry. points wise they balance well for 40k. the weapons they boast are not grotesquely op like you see on larger units.

FW stuff is starting to get the Official stamp too, last I heard. So, brace yourselves, this may get crazy.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
FW stuff is starting to get the Official stamp too, last I heard. So, brace yourselves, this may get crazy.

There's no "starting" about it, FW has been official for years now. The only question is whether people will stubbornly fight to the death to defend their no-FW house rules. Which is the same situation as Escalation: RAW it is indisputably part of the standard game, but some people insist that their "no Escalation" house rule is actually GW's position no matter how obviously wrong they are.

The only Super-Heavy Walker rules we have are in Escalation and Apocalypse, so unless the Imperial Knight's rules include those rules they wouldn't be fieldable if you're playing a core rules only game.
I don't know where you're getting "years" from, Peregrine. Until Escalation there were no rules recognised by the rulebook to play FW exclusive units outside of the Apocalypae expansion.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The only Super-Heavy Walker rules we have are in Escalation and Apocalypse, so unless the Imperial Knight's rules include those rules they wouldn't be fieldable if you're playing a core rules only game.
I don't know where you're getting "years" from, Peregrine. Until Escalation there were no rules recognised by the rulebook to play FW exclusive units outside of the Apocalypae expansion.

Because like a lot of people, you decided to ignore all those 'Official Rules' they're putting in FW books now. Don't worry, they started it on us over aft BFG and now it's spread to 40k.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The only Super-Heavy Walker rules we have are in Escalation and Apocalypse, so unless the Imperial Knight's rules include those rules they wouldn't be fieldable if you're playing a core rules only game.

Escalation is part of the core rules, just like C:SM is.

I don't know where you're getting "years" from, Peregrine. Until Escalation there were no rules recognised by the rulebook to play FW exclusive units outside of the Apocalypae expansion.

Nope, not true at all. FW units have been part of normal 40k for years now, Escalation just added the ability to take FW superheavies. The "standard" units were already legal.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
The only Super-Heavy Walker rules we have are in Escalation and Apocalypse, so unless the Imperial Knight's rules include those rules they wouldn't be fieldable if you're playing a core rules only game.

Escalation is part of the core rules, just like C:SM is.

By "core rules" I'm simply referring to playing with only the Rulebook and Codices, in much the same way I use "core rules" in D&D to refer to playing with the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and DM's Guide. I'm aware that Escalation is part of the "official" rules, and until Games Workshop runs some sort of organised play format that means nothing to me.

I don't know where you're getting "years" from, Peregrine. Until Escalation there were no rules recognised by the rulebook to play FW exclusive units outside of the Apocalypae expansion.

Nope, not true at all. FW units have been part of normal 40k for years now, Escalation just added the ability to take FW superheavies. The "standard" units were already legal.

Could you quote me the part of the 40k rulebook or FAQ that states that?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
By "core rules" I'm simply referring to playing with only the Rulebook and Codices, in much the same way I use "core rules" in D&D to refer to playing with the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and DM's Guide. I'm aware that Escalation is part of the "official" rules, and until Games Workshop runs some sort of organised play format that means nothing to me.

That's fine, but your "rulebook and codices" definition is purely your own invention. You're free to house rule yourself a special game like that, but it's not standard 40k. So please don't describe it as if it is, as doing so interferes with the purpose of YMDC and potentially confuses people.

Could you quote me the part of the 40k rulebook or FAQ that states that?

Could you quote me the part of the 40k rulebook or FAQ that states that only the 40k rulebook can tell you which rules are part of the standard game, and new books can't just say "this is now part of the game"?

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
By "core rules" I'm simply referring to playing with only the Rulebook and Codices, in much the same way I use "core rules" in D&D to refer to playing with the Player's Handbook, Monster Manual and DM's Guide. I'm aware that Escalation is part of the "official" rules, and until Games Workshop runs some sort of organised play format that means nothing to me.

That's fine, but your "rulebook and codices" definition is purely your own invention. You're free to house rule yourself a special game like that, but it's not standard 40k. So please don't describe it as if it is, as doing so interferes with the purpose of YMDC and potentially confuses people.

My original point still stands, if you've decided to not play with Escalation you don't have access to the rules that govern Super-Heavies.

Could you quote me the part of the 40k rulebook or FAQ that states that?

Could you quote me the part of the 40k rulebook or FAQ that states that only the 40k rulebook can tell you which rules are part of the standard game, and new books can't just say "this is now part of the game"?

I don't need to find denial of permission if you can't find permission in a permissive ruleset.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
My original point still stands, if you've decided to not play with Escalation you don't have access to the rules that govern Super-Heavies.

So what? This is like saying that you don't have the rules for tactical squads if you've decided not to play with C:SM. Obviously if you exclude certain rules you won't have them available, but I don't see what this has to do with normal games.

I don't need to find denial of permission if you can't find permission in a permissive ruleset.

The permission is found in each book that adds new stuff. You're the one assuming that GW has to issue that permission in the exact source that you want it in.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
My original point still stands, if you've decided to not play with Escalation you don't have access to the rules that govern Super-Heavies.

So what? This is like saying that you don't have the rules for tactical squads if you've decided not to play with C:SM. Obviously if you exclude certain rules you won't have them available, but I don't see what this has to do with normal games.

The original question was whether or not the Knights would be allowed in a format that didn't include Escalation, thus my answer.

I don't need to find denial of permission if you can't find permission in a permissive ruleset.

The permission is found in each book that adds new stuff. You're the one assuming that GW has to issue that permission in the exact source that you want it in.

Silly me for expecting rules to be in the rulebook.
Since any book from any part of of GW can have rules for standard 40k apparently, I'm gonna go get the guy who runs my local GW to make a Squats Codex.

FW are part of the GW studio. Is your local store manager?

Actually, Forge World's design studio is entirely separate from Games Workshop's.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

I don't know where you're getting "years" from, Peregrine. Until Escalation there were no rules recognised by the rulebook to play FW exclusive units outside of the Apocalypae expansion.

Nope, not true at all. FW units have been part of normal 40k for years now, Escalation just added the ability to take FW superheavies. The "standard" units were already legal.

Could you quote me the part of the 40k rulebook or FAQ that states that?

Page 108 of the BRB: The Army List

players are free to either adapt the army lists or use their own system as they wish.

If I wanted to I could field a 1500 pt army that consisted of Abbadon leading 95 Necron Warriors. I may not find an opponent, but it is perfectly legal.

Totally gonna adapt my army list to include Catzilla.

 Peregrine wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
My original point still stands, if you've decided to not play with Escalation you don't have access to the rules that govern Super-Heavies.

So what? This is like saying that you don't have the rules for tactical squads if you've decided not to play with C:SM. Obviously if you exclude certain rules you won't have them available, but I don't see what this has to do with normal games.

Can you quote where he said "normal games"? He was pretty clear in his original statement.

and by page 2 (actually halfway down page one but he-ho) that this has degenerated.

back on topic, knights can be used a primary detachment in lieu of a standard codex, meaning that one of them would be classified as your warlord, how that functions I do not know.

in terms of legality, gw's warriors code, which is enforced at all gw events outlines what is and what isn't part of the games, they have ruled that FW publications, escalation and strong hold are all apart of the game now, as such they are.

and before you go 'nuh-uh, gw events are not the rule book' ect ect how else do you measure the yard stick if not the very events that the company that produce the game run?

simple fact is these rules are in and are likely here to stay, they will undoubtedly be refined in future editions but I sense that the majority of the anti-escalation/FW alliance (as I dub those outspoken against these rules) will not be satisfied until the rules for these unit and weapons are in the standard rulebooks and codex's.

I do feel sorry for them though, they are missing out on loads of fun, where there is no such thing as a meta anymore

Iv seen Bjorn become a Warlord a few times so imagine its similar.. I believe a vehicle can only be a warlord as a last resort.

Hopping over to 40k general, it seems that most people are treating knights as staple 40k now.

Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, as far as I know knights do not have such permission except perhaps in their WD entry (I stopped buying the mag years ago, I'd need to ask the guys that have it what the specifics are when these guys are taken).

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Actually, Forge World's design studio is entirely separate from Games Workshop's.

Incorrect. See hydra / kharybdis model.

I've conferred with a couple of people, at this moment they do not have permission to be a warlord and they do not have an allies matrix but you do have permission to take them as allies, this means that at the moment nids can take these as allies (lol) but you cannot use them as a warlord.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
go halfbaked rules

 nutty_nutter wrote:
Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, as far as I know knights do not have such permission except perhaps in their WD entry (I stopped buying the mag years ago, I'd need to ask the guys that have it what the specifics are when these guys are taken).

He does? can you tell me where cause i can't find it, since hes a hq and a vehicle he can only potentially become your warlord if there are no other candidates present at all , despite being treated as LD10 due to being a vehicle he isn't actually LD10. Theres a topic on it somewhere.

To stay on topic, I assume theres going to a Faq out soon, since there is just a bucket of rules questions about these models regarding army composition. If they don't release one i think there will be some clashes between players.

There's a Salamander dread in HH that has the same thing.

 Elgrun wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, as far as I know knights do not have such permission except perhaps in their WD entry (I stopped buying the mag years ago, I'd need to ask the guys that have it what the specifics are when these guys are taken).

He does? can you tell me where cause i can't find it, since hes a hq and a vehicle he can only potentially become your warlord if there are no other candidates present at all , despite being treated as LD10 due to being a vehicle he isn't actually LD10. Theres a topic on it somewhere.

To stay on topic, I assume theres going to a Faq out soon, since there is just a bucket of rules questions about these models regarding army composition. If they don't release one i think there will be some clashes between players.

There is nothing that outright says that Bjorn can be your Warlord, however, if he is your only HQ, then your HQ character with the highest Leadership, is Bjorn. It just so happens his Leadership is non-existent. Currently, Bjorn is the only (non-FW) Type: Vehicle (Character) in Warhammer 40K.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, as far as I know knights do not have such permission except perhaps in their WD entry (I stopped buying the mag years ago, I'd need to ask the guys that have it what the specifics are when these guys are taken).

He does? can you tell me where cause i can't find it, since hes a hq and a vehicle he can only potentially become your warlord if there are no other candidates present at all , despite being treated as LD10 due to being a vehicle he isn't actually LD10. Theres a topic on it somewhere.

To stay on topic, I assume theres going to a Faq out soon, since there is just a bucket of rules questions about these models regarding army composition. If they don't release one i think there will be some clashes between players.

There is nothing that outright says that Bjorn can be your Warlord,

Umm the Faq does...

Q: Do models classified as unique count as characters? (p63)
A: Yes, but not in the case of vehicles (with the exception of
Bjorn the Fell-handed).

Bjorn the Fell-handed is a character.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, as far as I know knights do not have such permission except perhaps in their WD entry (I stopped buying the mag years ago, I'd need to ask the guys that have it what the specifics are when these guys are taken).

He does? can you tell me where cause i can't find it, since hes a hq and a vehicle he can only potentially become your warlord if there are no other candidates present at all , despite being treated as LD10 due to being a vehicle he isn't actually LD10. Theres a topic on it somewhere.

To stay on topic, I assume theres going to a Faq out soon, since there is just a bucket of rules questions about these models regarding army composition. If they don't release one i think there will be some clashes between players.

There is nothing that outright says that Bjorn can be your Warlord,

Umm the Faq does...

Q: Do models classified as unique count as characters? (p63)
A: Yes, but not in the case of vehicles (with the exception of
Bjorn the Fell-handed).

Bjorn the Fell-handed is a character.

"And what a character he is, I tell you! Virtual life of the party!"

SJ

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Elgrun wrote:

 nutty_nutter wrote:
Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, as far as I know knights do not have such permission except perhaps in their WD entry (I stopped buying the mag years ago, I'd need to ask the guys that have it what the specifics are when these guys are taken).

He does? can you tell me where cause i can't find it, since hes a hq and a vehicle he can only potentially become your warlord if there are no other candidates present at all , despite being treated as LD10 due to being a vehicle he isn't actually LD10. Theres a topic on it somewhere.

To stay on topic, I assume theres going to a Faq out soon, since there is just a bucket of rules questions about these models regarding army composition. If they don't release one i think there will be some clashes between players.

There is nothing that outright says that Bjorn can be your Warlord,

Umm the Faq does...

Q: Do models classified as unique count as characters? (p63)
A: Yes, but not in the case of vehicles (with the exception of
Bjorn the Fell-handed).

Bjorn the Fell-handed is a character.

DR, please read the entirety of my post. There is nothing, nowhere, that outright states "Bjorn can be your Warlord". Just like there is nothing that outright says "A Blood Angels Chapter Master can be your Warlord". Both a granted permission to be your Warlord by virtue of being a character. Furthermore, the only way Bjorn can be your Warlord is if he is your only HQ choice.

Good times all around.

Given the information in the WD, that IK's can be taken as a Primary or Allied detachment, the wording until they FAQ it or give more information leads one to believe that:

A: they are a legal force Org choice for 40K games.

B: Every Codex can take one (including Nids) as they did not state who could not take IK's as allies.

C: that they have as yet to disclose what kind of Allies they are to which armies (BB, AoC, DA)

D: How they can be take as a Primary Detachment.

E: If there are any other variants of them yet to be shown.

All in all, I love the model, love the Concept, but four-see them being blacklisted from Tournaments due too numerous issues.

Still it will come down to you either have one or you're getting one to survive, or you're not playing against/with it.

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, please read the entirety of my post. There is nothing, nowhere, that outright states "Bjorn can be your Warlord". Just like there is nothing that outright says "A Blood Angels Chapter Master can be your Warlord". Both a granted permission to be your Warlord by virtue of being a character. Furthermore, the only way Bjorn can be your Warlord is if he is your only HQ choice.

I did.

Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, by virtue of being a character though the FAQ...

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, please read the entirety of my post. There is nothing, nowhere, that outright states "Bjorn can be your Warlord". Just like there is nothing that outright says "A Blood Angels Chapter Master can be your Warlord". Both a granted permission to be your Warlord by virtue of being a character. Furthermore, the only way Bjorn can be your Warlord is if he is your only HQ choice.

I did.

Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, by virtue of being a character though the FAQ...

You're confusing implied permission with specific permission.
The FAQ implies permission because he's an HQ character.
Specific permission would be a statement that Bjorn can be the Warlord.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
DR, please read the entirety of my post. There is nothing, nowhere, that outright states "Bjorn can be your Warlord". Just like there is nothing that outright says "A Blood Angels Chapter Master can be your Warlord". Both a granted permission to be your Warlord by virtue of being a character. Furthermore, the only way Bjorn can be your Warlord is if he is your only HQ choice.

I did.

Bjorn has specific permission to be a warlord, by virtue of being a character though the FAQ...

You're confusing implied permission with specific permission.
The FAQ implies permission because he's an HQ character.
Specific permission would be a statement that Bjorn can be the Warlord.

No I am not.

The FAQ gives him character status. This is specific permission to be a warlord as he is a character, where any other vehicle is not.

"Q: Do models classified as unique count as characters? (p63)
A: Yes, but not in the case of vehicles (with the exception of
Bjorn the Fell-handed). "

Specifically, he's a character.
Do all characters have the ability to be Warlord?

rigeld2 wrote:
Specifically, he's a character.
Do all characters have the ability to be Warlord?

as per page 111, yes. (Unless specified otherwise).

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Specifically, he's a character.
Do all characters have the ability to be Warlord?

as per page 111, yes. (Unless specified otherwise).

No. All HQ Characters have the ability to be Warlord.
Since the FAQ doesn't specify Warlord and you have to look elsewhere, the FAQ doesn't give specific permission.
It's implicit permission.

As always, the problem of tearing down a wall between 40k and apoc is that plenty of people still remember it existing at some point. As of now you need the escalation book and likely a codex to run your 140$ model, good luck.

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Specifically, he's a character.
Do all characters have the ability to be Warlord?

as per page 111, yes. (Unless specified otherwise).

No. All HQ Characters have the ability to be Warlord.
Since the FAQ doesn't specify Warlord and you have to look elsewhere, the FAQ doesn't give specific permission.
It's implicit permission.

Not all HQs can be Warlords. The Tervigon in the Nid codex for example can't be your Warlord.

From Pg.111

"... you must nominate one model to be your Warlord. This is always the HQ choice CHARACTER with the highest leadership."

So Tervigons can't be a Warlord as they are not characters. Bjorn can be your Warlord provided he is the HQ character with the highest leadership (or at least tied) as he meets the requirements on pg 110 and 111.

Also once the rules come out one of the Knights will probably have permission to be the Warlord even though it is not a character.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that a vehicle can't be your Warlord. If you have the page number that states that I would love to see it as I haven't been able to find it yet.

gloomfang...he did say characters.....

Until we get Knight barons, they won't count as characters, that is.

no....but they have been given permission to be the warlord AND hold objectives.

there was a press release today (or possibly yesterday) on the GW facebook page about it.

it'll all be official in the next couple of weeks but yea, you can field 4 in a 1500point list

 Gloomfang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Specifically, he's a character.
Do all characters have the ability to be Warlord?

as per page 111, yes. (Unless specified otherwise).

No. All HQ Characters have the ability to be Warlord.
Since the FAQ doesn't specify Warlord and you have to look elsewhere, the FAQ doesn't give specific permission.
It's implicit permission.

Not all HQs can be Warlords. The Tervigon in the Nid codex for example can't be your Warlord.

Correct. I said all HQ characters, not all HQs.

Nowhere in the rules does it state that a vehicle can't be your Warlord. If you have the page number that states that I would love to see it as I haven't been able to find it yet.

Since, as you pointed out, a Warlord must be a character, and Bjorn is the only vehicle allowed (by the rules) to be a character...

Ok. I was tired when I read what you said. I thought you said Bjorn couldn't be a Warlord.

My apologies.

My jimmies are all rustled as I can't think of a way to handle an army of these things. And I know that they are going to be very popular in my area.

If you can handle a bunch of Leman Russes, you can handle these.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you can handle a bunch of Leman Russes, you can handle these.

That I have to disagre with. Russes don't have an invul vs shooting or a WS4 I3. Or a D CC weapon.

That means taking things into CC with it is a bad idea and that is how Nids kill russes.

Also if you do kill it in CC everything takes aanother D hit when it explodes.

if your really concerend about them, take 3 units of 30 gaunts, 3 spawn monsters and constantly tie them up in CC for the entire game.....the can only kill so many per turn even with stomp attacks and your not going to run away anywhere.

 Gloomfang wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you can handle a bunch of Leman Russes, you can handle these.

That I have to disagre with. Russes don't have an invul vs shooting

Russes can get a cover save pretty easily (with all the Chimeras around).
Russes are also 14 AV on the front, not 13.

or a WS4 I3. Or a D CC weapon.
That means taking things into CC with it is a bad idea and that is how Nids kill russes.

Also if you do kill it in CC everything takes aanother D hit when it explodes.

Sure - but Nids are pretty unique with that "requirement". Most anyone else can field enough AT weaponry to deal with these pretty easily.
About as easy as if your opponent was mech guard...

 nutty_nutter wrote:
if your really concerend about them, take 3 units of 30 gaunts, 3 spawn monsters and constantly tie them up in CC for the entire game.....the can only kill so many per turn even with stomp attacks and your not going to run away anywhere.

That would be great if it worked. Pg76. "Assaulting a vehicle". You can't assault a vehicle you can't hurt.


EDIT: And it doesn't feel good to have everyone else have at least a partial answer to these things except the army you play. If we still had pods it might not have been that bad. If they didn't have the stubber it might not have been bad either. At the Hive we are still trying to see about killing one let alone getting 3 of them off objectives. Hard to even contest with that big base.

It could be worse. They don't have inferno cannons and a D CC weapon.

So i take it that no one in this thread saw these;

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

via a Reader here on Faeit 212
Here's a reply I got from GW Customer Service regarding the key question, can Chaos ally with Knights?

From: UK Customer Services
Date: 24 February 2014
To:
Subject: Re: Imperial Knights

Hi
Thanks for the email, the rules printed in this week's issue of White Dwarf state that "They may also be taken as allies; you can include up to three Imperial Knights as a single allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army" As such any 40k army can take them as a allied detachment.

Perhaps the persuasive nature of Slaanesh has convinced a Freelance household to work for Chaos, or maybe they just pay better than the Forces of the Imperium.


As Tyranids are unable to Ally with any other armies, due to their natural desire to devour everything in their path, they cant ally with the Imperial Knights either.

We hope this helps and that you enjoy the new Imperial Knights.

Curses! There goes my hope for a House becoming a Genestealer Cult.

Though I guess I shouldn't be surprised about the love GW gives my Nids...

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
So i take it that no one in this thread saw these;

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

via a Reader here on Faeit 212
Here's a reply I got from GW Customer Service regarding the key question, can Chaos ally with Knights?

From: UK Customer Services
Date: 24 February 2014
To:
Subject: Re: Imperial Knights

Hi
Thanks for the email, the rules printed in this week's issue of White Dwarf state that "They may also be taken as allies; you can include up to three Imperial Knights as a single allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army" As such any 40k army can take them as a allied detachment.

Perhaps the persuasive nature of Slaanesh has convinced a Freelance household to work for Chaos, or maybe they just pay better than the Forces of the Imperium.


As Tyranids are unable to Ally with any other armies, due to their natural desire to devour everything in their path, they cant ally with the Imperial Knights either.

We hope this helps and that you enjoy the new Imperial Knights.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

YMDC tenet #2.

Not only that, it really doesn't matter if they say they can be taken as allies, since without the level of Alliance it's meaningless. To really be legal, everyone has wait 2 weeks for the Codex to release before actually using them in a game. It would also seem that the bit on the Digital page was removed. I didn't see it when I looked for it again.

Angelic wrote:
Not only that, it really doesn't matter if they say they can be taken as allies, since without the level of Alliance it's meaningless. To really be legal, everyone has wait 2 weeks for the Codex to release before actually using them in a game. It would also seem that the bit on the Digital page was removed. I didn't see it when I looked for it again.

Given the RaW mess that is D Weapons I don't see the lack of clarification on level of alliance as a massive problem. You have to create house rules to work D weapons anyway why not just agree then on the level of alliance? (Personally I'm going tosuggest in my games that we follow the IG matrix as that makes the most sense with BB IG but hey).

They are entirely RaW legal they just break the game much like D weapons.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Angelic wrote:
Not only that, it really doesn't matter if they say they can be taken as allies, since without the level of Alliance it's meaningless. To really be legal, everyone has wait 2 weeks for the Codex to release before actually using them in a game. It would also seem that the bit on the Digital page was removed. I didn't see it when I looked for it again.

Given the RaW mess that is D Weapons I don't see the lack of clarification on level of alliance as a massive problem. You have to create house rules to work D weapons anyway why not just agree then on the level of alliance? (Personally I'm going tosuggest in my games that we follow the IG matrix as that makes the most sense with BB IG but hey).

They are entirely RaW legal they just break the game much like D weapons.

What mess do D weapons create withing the RAW/?

Well they do wounds to models but to hit and to wound is done against units. So there's a total disconnect between the process that D weapons intercept at the to wound step then return to for the wound allocation step. Essentially If my D blast hits 4 Orks from a 30 man squad and I roll 4 x 6s to wound then 24+4d6 Orks are killed not the 4 that is the clear intention. Essentially they are missing the "1 hit = 1 kill" for multi-wound hits that Warhammer has.

This is a lot more simple than people are making it. If you are not playing with Escalation or Apoc, then there's nothing that defines "Super Heavy" - therefore making super heavies unavailable in "normal" 40k.

Unless the Imperial Knight book defines them specifically, then there's room for argument.

The fact remains that quite a few people do not want to play with super heavy units, D weapons, or the variant missions available from supplment books, no matter what GW thinks.
That is something which will have to be decided by your group.

I'm just looking forward to playing 40k scale BattleTech, been waiting literally 2 decades to be able to legally field Knight-class Titans in 40k, and I am going to field me some Knight/Mechs!!!

SJ

 FlingitNow wrote:
Well they do wounds to models but to hit and to wound is done against units.

Actually they don't. D-weapons don't generate wounds that go into the wound pool, they reduce a specific model's wounds characteristic by a set amount. You determine which models are hit, then for each model you roll separately to see how many wounds (if any) it loses. And then if its wounds characteristic is reduced to 0 or less it is removed as a casualty.

Daeghrefn wrote:

Unless the Imperial Knight book defines them specifically, then there's room for argument.

This is incorrect. GW has specifically stated that these are for 'normal' 40k. This argument holds no more water than a SM codex failing to include a definition of 'heavy bolter' means that all heavy bolters are only allowed with opponents approval.

Heavy Bolters are defined in the rulebook, Super-Heavies are not.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Heavy Bolters are defined in the rulebook, Super-Heavies are not.

and escalation and stronghold are not optional rules (excluding the optional update tot he building rules) as defined within thier own pages.

the standard rulebook is no longer an all encompasing rulebook, and never has been, otherwise there would be no codex's.

Actually they don't. D-weapons don't generate wounds that go into the wound pool, they reduce a specific model's wounds characteristic by a set amount. You determine which models are hit, then for each model you roll separately to see how many wounds (if any) it loses. And then if its wounds characteristic is reduced to 0 or less it is removed as a casualty.

Which would be cool if there was a method of determining which models were hit. You follow the normal shoot process for to hit which generated exactly zero hits on models ever (but does generate hits on units), hence RaW D weapons don't actually do anything.

 nutty_nutter wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Heavy Bolters are defined in the rulebook, Super-Heavies are not.

and escalation and stronghold are not optional rules (excluding the optional update tot he building rules) as defined within thier own pages.

the standard rulebook is no longer an all encompasing rulebook, and never has been, otherwise there would be no codex's.

The point is that if you already don't play with Escalation you aren't playing with the rules that allow Knights to function, regardless of how "official" these rules you aren't using are.

I mean, Mysterious Objectives are official, they're right there in the core rulebook, doesn't stop the majority of players I know from completely ignoring them.

Games Workshop stopped having the right to decide what "standard 40k" means when they stopped sponsoring tournaments, that right now lies in the community's hands.

Well standard or normal 40k includes Escalation. If you take out Escalation or fortifications or the shooting phase or codexes or any other normal rules that is not normal 40k.

The definition of "normal" is "the usual, typical, or expected state or condition", so if the most common form of 40k played does not include the Escalation rules I would argue that normal 40k does not include Escalation.

So you have the statistical evidence to support that I guess? It is also conforming to the standard. The standard here being what GW says it is. Discounting Escalation is no more a normal game of Escalation than discounting flyers (I know of lots of people who play without flyers) or discounting Tau or discounting Allies or discounting melta weapons or the movement phase...

Creating house rules that you and your group agree to is cool and up to you but it is not standard or normal 40k when you do that.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Actually they don't. D-weapons don't generate wounds that go into the wound pool, they reduce a specific model's wounds characteristic by a set amount. You determine which models are hit, then for each model you roll separately to see how many wounds (if any) it loses. And then if its wounds characteristic is reduced to 0 or less it is removed as a casualty.

Which would be cool if there was a method of determining which models were hit. You follow the normal shoot process for to hit which generated exactly zero hits on models ever (but does generate hits on units), hence RaW D weapons don't actually do anything.

not true, blast rules cause hits based on models.

the only non blast D wepoan I can think of is the pylon for necrons which shoots as normal.

D weapons also have thier own rules governing how damage works, so while the hitting aspect is the same, the rolls for wounding are replaced.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 PrinceRaven wrote:


Games Workshop stopped having the right to decide what "standard 40k" means when they stopped sponsoring tournaments, that right now lies in the community's hands.

also untrue, they run thier own tournaments, they are under no obligation to support 3rd party tournaments at all, and since they create the game and set the rules for their own tournament (which at this time include escaltion, stronghold and imperial armour books) that is the definition of the 'standard'.

your personal preference does not in any way mean that your definition of what a normal game is, is correct, it is what it is. your preference.

not true, blast rules cause hits based on models.

So you're saying you roll to wound against each model and only remove the models under the blast for normal blasts? Because that really isn't how the blast rules work. Just like any shooting attack they cause hits on units. You generate those hits by counting models but the models never receive hits. They only ever receive wounds and then only through the wound pool.

D weapons also have thier own rules governing how damage works, so while the hitting aspect is the same, the rolls for wounding are replaced.

And rolls to wound are done against units (hence the majority toughness rule) as the hits are on the unit. D Weapons roll against models but they never generate hits on models so there's literally no way to resolve D weapons RaW.

FlingitNow wrote:So you have the statistical evidence to support that I guess? It is also conforming to the standard. The standard here being what GW says it is. Discounting Escalation is no more a normal game of Escalation than discounting flyers (I know of lots of people who play without flyers) or discounting Tau or discounting Allies or discounting melta weapons or the movement phase...

Creating house rules that you and your group agree to is cool and up to you but it is not standard or normal 40k when you do that.

I said "if". Standard simply means accepted as normal, so we have to go right back to the "what is normal?" discussion.

nutty_nutter wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:


Games Workshop stopped having the right to decide what "standard 40k" means when they stopped sponsoring tournaments, that right now lies in the community's hands.

also untrue, they run thier own tournaments, they are under no obligation to support 3rd party tournaments at all, and since they create the game and set the rules for their own tournament (which at this time include escaltion, stronghold and imperial armour books) that is the definition of the 'standard'.

your personal preference does not in any way mean that your definition of what a normal game is, is correct, it is what it is. your preference.

They get to decide the format for their own tournaments just like any other tournament organiser. Until they have an organised global format this matters as much as any other tournament when determining what is "normal 40k".

 FlingitNow wrote:

not true, blast rules cause hits based on models.

So you're saying you roll to wound against each model and only remove the models under the blast for normal blasts? Because that really isn't how the blast rules work. Just like any shooting attack they cause hits on units. You generate those hits by counting models but the models never receive hits. They only ever receive wounds and then only through the wound pool.

not what I said.

you stipulated that hits are not caused on model basis, they are where blast weapons are concerned, it says so right on page 6 that a blast weapons number of hits are = to the number of models underneath the template. therefore the number of hits is = to the number of models underneath the template.

again however D weapons do not care about toughness, they have their own rules for dealing damage based on the number of hits.

it is actually crystal clear on how D weapons work within the confines of the rules on p17 of Escalation.

 PrinceRaven wrote:



They get to decide the format for their own tournaments just like any other tournament organiser. Until they have an organised global format this matters as much as any other tournament when determining what is "normal 40k".

No they decided on the rules they released and you decided to buy the models for the game they released. They encourage you to be creative and forge a narrative, but the normal game is what they released rules for. If two people agreed to a 1800 point game, and didn't discuss any house rules, when you get to the game you must expect all GW rules to be in effect.

not what I said.

you stipulated that hits are not caused on model basis, they are where blast weapons are concerned, it says so right on page 6 that a blast weapons number of hits are = to the number of models underneath the template. therefore the number of hits is = to the number of models underneath the template.

again however D weapons do not care about toughness, they have their own rules for dealing damage based on the number of hits.

Actually it is exactly what you said and are still claiming. No hits from blast weapons are caused on models. Hits are caused on units read the blast weapon rules. Yes you count models to work out how many hits you cause ON THE UNIT.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You think damage is done from D weapons based on hits who suffers that damage how and why?

Stormbreed wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:



They get to decide the format for their own tournaments just like any other tournament organiser. Until they have an organised global format this matters as much as any other tournament when determining what is "normal 40k".

No they decided on the rules they released and you decided to buy the models for the game they released. They encourage you to be creative and forge a narrative, but the normal game is what they released rules for. If two people agreed to a 1800 point game, and didn't discuss any house rules, when you get to the game you must expect all GW rules to be in effect.

What makes the official rules in all their horrible glory automatically the normal way of playing? Other games' communities have created their own formats, why can't we?

What makes the official rules in all their horrible glory automatically the normal way of playing? Other games' communities have created their own formats, why can't we?

Because they are the standard way of playing. If you're playing Warhammer 40,000 you use the Warhammer 40,000 rules if you want to use different set of rules or a subset of those rules that is up to you and your opponent but you both have to agree to that claiming what you want to play is normal is a pretty ludicrous stance to take.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Actually it is exactly what you said and are still claiming. No hits from blast weapons are caused on models. Hits are caused on units read the blast weapon rules. Yes you count models to work out how many hits you cause ON THE UNIT.

You think damage is done from D weapons based on hits who suffers that damage how and why?

IIRC, and I may be wrong in this, wounds can only be assigned to models under the template, regardless of how many models the unit has. Any excess wounds are effectively lost. This applies for Str D as much as anything else.

IIRC, and I may be wrong in this, wounds can only be assigned to models under the template, regardless of how many models the unit has. Any excess wounds are effectively lost. This applies for Str D as much as anything else.

You do not recall correctly. Not only are the wounds not confined to the models under the marker they could indeed result in casualties where none of the models under the template are hurt. For instance you fire a blast at a squad of 10 marines and hit the back 5. You wound with all hits and he fails all his saves still the nearest 5 die with the 5 actually under the template unharmed.

This is because you generate hits on a unit, you roll to wound against a unit and only during wound allocation using the wound pool does anything actually directly effect models. This is the issue with D Weapons. You roll to hit and generate hits ona unit it then tells you to roll a dice for each model hit but no model is ever hit.

 FlingitNow wrote:

IIRC, and I may be wrong in this, wounds can only be assigned to models under the template, regardless of how many models the unit has. Any excess wounds are effectively lost. This applies for Str D as much as anything else.

You do not recall correctly. Not only are the wounds not confined to the models under the marker they could indeed result in casualties where none of the models under the template are hurt. For instance you fire a blast at a squad of 10 marines and hit the back 5. You wound with all hits and he fails all his saves still the nearest 5 die with the 5 actually under the template unharmed.

This is because you generate hits on a unit, you roll to wound against a unit and only during wound allocation using the wound pool does anything actually directly effect models. This is the issue with D Weapons. You roll to hit and generate hits ona unit it then tells you to roll a dice for each model hit but no model is ever hit.

6th ed FAQ wrote:Work out the total number of models hit by each template, then proceed to allocate Wounds and remove casualties as normal for the models hit by each separate template.

"allocate wounds as normal"

As normal means as per page 15, from memory. Not to the models under the template / marker alone.

The usual rules are those published by GW stating they are the rules for the game. Anything elsei s purely subjective.

Normal wound allocation means the wound pool. From that rather poorly written FAQ it would mean that the RaW of multiple barrages wouldn't work as if you roll to wound against models you don't create a wound pool and can't hurt anyone.

Blast weapons just like all other weapons score hits on units. Their method of doing so is counting models and this appears to be what they are talking about by models hit. Those hits are still on the unit not the models. Hence the problem with D Weapons you roll on the D Weapon chart instead of rolling to wound but are supposed to roll for each model hit when no models are hit.

Personally I'd house rule it to work the D weapons as such:

D Weapon don't roll to wound and don't allow saves of any kind. Calculate the umber of hits an attack causes as usual and put these straight into the wound pool. Instead of rolling saves roll on the chart opposite to see the effect on each model in turn.

I think this is essentially how they are intended to work.