Warhams-77 wrote: These are regional dates though Australia, NZ and Asia can already preorder. Central Europe in the next 60 minutes. USA in about 8 hours? You can set the webshop to a country 'in the east' to already see the new products
Funnily enough, that image of 5 Knights standing around really decreased my desire for an IK force in that they all look the same and not in a good way.
GW can throw different weapon combos on it, but at the end of the day it's still a codex made up of only 1 unit. At least FW mixed it up a bit with some unique designs.
I must be one of the few knight owners that isn't super excited about this release. It's nice to see a real codex now, but I'm still feeling burned on the initial codex. And the fact that the price dropped on it over time. I got a fancy certificate for being one of the early knight owners, but blah. It's a shape they took the imperial knight companion book off though. Now would be an ideal time to push whatever copies were left...I'd be surprised if they finally sold them all.
Eh, I've got other things I'm more interested in spending my money on atm.
I'm just hoping that Forge World will soon pump out an FAQ for the fourth Horus Heresy book allowing me to add these new variants to my Questoris force.
Can the Knight Crusaders go full on gung-ho DAKKA and wield duel battle cannons or Gatling Cannons? That would be glorious...
Or the melee one get duel chainswords or Gauntlets?
Or we don't know yet?
I wanna scratch build another Knight or 2.
Engine of War wrote: Can the Knight Crusaders go full on gung-ho DAKKA and wield duel battle cannons or Gatling Cannons? That would be glorious...
Or the melee one get duel chainswords or Gauntlets?
Or we don't know yet?
I wanna scratch build another Knight or 2.
If not so be it... I have some ideas
I think it's one gatling cannon and either the battlecannon or the melta. I don't think you can take two of the same gun, sadly.
Agreed. Seems like the FW Questoris knights might make a better base for a Warden and perhaps a Crusader knight. At least the carapace and shoulder pads are different, making the model look heavier and more solid.
Funnily enough, that image of 5 Knights standing around really decreased my desire for an IK force in that they all look the same and not in a good way.
GW can throw different weapon combos on it, but at the end of the day it's still a codex made up of only 1 unit. At least FW mixed it up a bit with some unique designs.
Engine of War wrote: Can the Knight Crusaders go full on gung-ho DAKKA and wield duel battle cannons or Gatling Cannons? That would be glorious...
Or the melee one get duel chainswords or Gauntlets?
Or we don't know yet?
I wanna scratch build another Knight or 2.
If not so be it... I have some ideas
I think it's one gatling cannon and either the battlecannon or the melta. I don't think you can take two of the same gun, sadly.
awwwww :(
There could have been so much tears.... so much Dakka.
Ok, I generally don't complain about GW (I'm an unabashed fanboy), but their handling of iBooks is a bit annoying...
Sure, I understand that the new Codex: Imperial Knights is going to be a new codex in the iBooks Store, and not an update to the one I bought before. However, the fact that the old edition is pulled from the store altogether means that I can't download my old purchase on a new device or laptop... As someone who loves looking back through old books for inspiration, they may have just turned me off from interactive versions. Thanks, GW.
HGChamberlainIV wrote: Ok, I generally don't complain about GW (I'm an unabashed fanboy), but their handling of iBooks is a bit annoying...
Sure, I understand that the new Codex: Imperial Knights is going to be a new codex in the iBooks Store, and not an update to the one I bought before. However, the fact that the old edition is pulled from the store altogether means that I can't download my old purchase on a new device or laptop... As someone who loves looking back through old books for inspiration, they may have just turned me off from interactive versions. Thanks, GW.
If that’s the case, they just made sure they are never going to receive my iBuisness. I can understand not handing out free upgrades to the new stuff, but if I can’t get the stuff I paid for, that’s a no go.
Well, it doesn't work for most of you but, I think once I choose what weapon to put on my knight I may give away the others. (Here is to hoping for a fist, and the cannon the paladin normal has instead of a gatling as a legit combo.)
Then again, if I put the ML on my knight, the autocannons would look stellar on terrain.
I give it a month before resin missle turretts the same general size and shape start showing up on all the sites of the usual suitable for use in Warhammer 40,000 sites.
I gice it a week before someone just starts using Whirlwind Turrets.
adamsouza wrote: I give it a month before resin missle turretts the same general size and shape start showing up on all the sites of the usual suitable for use in Warhammer 40,000 sites.
I gice it a week before someone just starts using Whirlwind Turrets.
Gits just sent me a Whirlwind turret. Thanks man for the idea
I don't think the old-school metal one would go well on top of the knight... it weighs a ton. You might be able to re-cast it in resin though so it would be a more appropriate fit for the Knight.
HGChamberlainIV wrote: I was afraid to chop up any of the faceplates, and wasn't sure how battle damage would look, but this pic form the new iBook sample is awesome:
If that is a Freeblade and has rules, I am totally making one of my Knights into this. Looks so epic!
BrookM wrote: Judging from the style and the way the guardsmen are drawn this is a new freelancer with not as much experience with the setting.
What sort of guns are the guardsmen using there? I don't recognise them at first glance.
Exactly. While the artist is probably given a thorough briefing of what the Knight is supposed to look like, the Guardsmen are drawn as generic sci-fi soldiers who have more in common with the dime a dozen sci-fi shooters teens play these days.
BrookM wrote: Judging from the style and the way the guardsmen are drawn this is a new freelancer with not as much experience with the setting.
What sort of guns are the guardsmen using there? I don't recognise them at first glance.
Exactly. While the artist is probably given a thorough briefing of what the Knight is supposed to look like, the Guardsmen are drawn as generic sci-fi soldiers who have more in common with the dime a dozen sci-fi shooters teens play these days.
Really? Huh, I saw oldschool metal-style Cadians with Shotguns.
BrookM wrote: Judging from the style and the way the guardsmen are drawn this is a new freelancer with not as much experience with the setting.
What sort of guns are the guardsmen using there? I don't recognise them at first glance.
Exactly. While the artist is probably given a thorough briefing of what the Knight is supposed to look like, the Guardsmen are drawn as generic sci-fi soldiers who have more in common with the dime a dozen sci-fi shooters teens play these days.
Really? Huh, I saw oldschool metal-style Cadians with Shotguns.
I see generic Halo scrubs with blocky Halo assault rifles myself.
If it were Cadians they'd be the current ones, with bright green armour and khaki uniforms.
Arguing over one of the most diverse military organisations in the galaxy seems silly. They could be using bull pop lasguns such as the drop regiments use, which are much shorter and designed for close range firefights.
Acccording to GW the most diverse organisation in the galaxy either looks like green bobble head in khaki or a burly, sweaty muscle man with a red bandana.
fireangel wrote: Forgive me if this has been answered, but is there any word on if the upgrade sprue will be sold separately?
I have an unassembled Knight model, that I would love to add the options to.
Any word?
I'm thinking that wouldn't be a sound financial strategy for them:
Why make a new sprue and charge $25 for it when for a cost of a couple of quids worth of styrene extra, using molds they already have, they can bundle it all together and charge $150 for it?
Anyway, this is the one case where I don't understand anyone arguing about the price. I mean I guess it's still a rather large bump, but when you're already spending $140 on a single miniature it doesn't seem like another $17 would be a huge deal.
BrookM wrote: Acccording to GW the most diverse organisation in the galaxy either looks like green bobble head in khaki or a burly, sweaty muscle man with a red bandana.
Also, all three soldiers are lefties, abominatus!
Haha true, thank goodness for FW more than doubling the variation in IG regiments.
Warhams-77 wrote: Same Knight - different artwork and good for a wallpaper
Spoiler:
Thanks for that.
Judging from the style and the way the guardsmen are drawn this is a new freelancer with not as much experience with the setting.
The artist seems to be the same who did a lot of the art in the "Leviathan" book.
It's kind of interesting in that he drew some veterans specifically that way, outfitted with carapace armor, in the background book and it was specifically labeled as a "hotshot lasgun". It honestly makes me wonder if GW might have a veteran kit ready to go soon.
I was thinking about this a bit further, and realized that apart from the carapace launchers/icarus, all of the main weapons of ALL of the Knights thus far could be sourced from DFG 15mm Leviathan weapon arms.
Rapid Fire Battle Cannon
Thermal Cannon
Reaper Chainsword
Avenger Gatling Cannon
Thunderstrike Gauntlet
You'd need to add a heavy flamer to the Vulkan, and a heavy stubber to the Beowulf/Grendel, but if they all fit, or can easily be made to fit, the Knight body as well as the picture of the IK with a DFG Vulkan, you could add a lot of visual variety to a knight household.
The GW Knights are pretty poor relatives beside the FW beauties. Which would be ok if they were really cheap but they ain't. I will keep saving my pennies for a warhound I think. In fairness the warden is the best GW effort on their chasis to date.
BrookM wrote: Yeah no, feth that, I'm not going to stick a Dreamforge saw on an Imperial Knight, that thing is oversized compared to the original Reaper.
I'm not a big fan of the DFG saw myself, I think it's the only one of the weapon options I DIDN'T get from the KS. I just thought it was kind of funny that there's a viable stand in for all of the GW IK arm weapons.
fireangel wrote: Forgive me if this has been answered, but is there any word on if the upgrade sprue will be sold separately?
I have an unassembled Knight model, that I would love to add the options to.
Any word?
I really don't think GW will do this. They've been doing that with a lot of the kits and seem to be going away from upgrade sprues in general. You can get them on ebay or other bits places, but it'll cost you a fortune.
For example, with tyranids if you want the mucloid spores out of the tyranocyte kit, (which only come one to a box, and only in that box) you have the following options:
1 you have to make the drop pod sitting on the ground without the lower tentacles
2 you make the drop pod as is and make your own tentacles
3 you make the sporocyst and the mucloid spore.
4 you buy the lower tentacles someplace else.
No matter what you do, you need the lower tentacle pieces from somewhere.
Actually, there is more you can do with the Dream Forge kits than you think.
The 15mm ones are too small to be stand-ins for Imperial knights, however if you bits-order a Lord of Skulls Torso (about $11 on ebay) it bulks the model up quite a bit and makes it Knight-sized.
Dreamforge also has it's 15mm Leviathans on sale right now for about $35, and $10 per extra arm. Not too bad if you want a knight force with some variety in looks.
Also, as a side note, the Dream Forge Leviathan;s head fits into the Lord Of Skulls torso like it was meant to go there, looks wonderful.
BrookM wrote: Yeah no, feth that, I'm not going to stick a Dreamforge saw on an Imperial Knight, that thing is oversized compared to the original Reaper.
I'm not a big fan of the DFG saw myself, I think it's the only one of the weapon options I DIDN'T get from the KS. I just thought it was kind of funny that there's a viable stand in for all of the GW IK arm weapons.
This might be a dumb question, but I was under the impression the rules for Gerantius were in WD Issue 66, all I got were rules for the Knight Warden... Halp please?
BrookM wrote: Yeah no, feth that, I'm not going to stick a Dreamforge saw on an Imperial Knight, that thing is oversized compared to the original Reaper.
I'm not a big fan of the DFG saw myself, I think it's the only one of the weapon options I DIDN'T get from the KS. I just thought it was kind of funny that there's a viable stand in for all of the GW IK arm weapons.
The chainsaw is stupid big:
I don't know really.... As pointed out earlier the DF leviathan is smaller than the Knight, so that "stupid big" chainsword might look about right on a Knight.
How can a unit like that, which is brand new according to this thread, have been out for so long? The picture even had the new Knight kit on it.
No, Gerantius was a SC knight from when the first Knight kit was released. He's not brand new at all. The rules posted earlier that you're thinking of were either Gerantius with the old Knight on the picture, or the rules for the new variants.
This is the one I was talking about, the way we were all talking, it was supposed to be in an upcoming WD with rules update. If I can't get it anymore I'm going to be mad because I had NEVER seen this thing ANYWHERE before it was posted here. I was under the impression it was coming out in this week's WD.
I hate asking this, but if anyone has the digital version, could you shoot me a screen cap of it's entries?
The Geranitus SC is just a Knight Errant with a 3++ ion shield, WS/BS 5, IWND and it gets to reroll 1's on the "Stomp" table. He can also run and shoot. I took him to NOVA last year. He was fun to play with.
So far we have not seen rules, abilitys or points costs of any of the new Knight Variants other than the basic Warden.
This is the one I was talking about, the way we were all talking, it was supposed to be in an upcoming WD with rules update. If I can't get it anymore I'm going to be mad because I had NEVER seen this thing ANYWHERE before it was posted here. I was under the impression it was coming out in this week's WD.
That's from WD 24. People were talking about him because they were wondering if he was going to be in the codex, and then someone asked what his rules were and someone posted that.
This is the one I was talking about, the way we were all talking, it was supposed to be in an upcoming WD with rules update. If I can't get it anymore I'm going to be mad because I had NEVER seen this thing ANYWHERE before it was posted here. I was under the impression it was coming out in this week's WD.
I hate asking this, but if anyone has the digital version, could you shoot me a screen cap of it's entries?
No, the way people were talking was speculation on whether the rules for this special character would be incorporated into the new book, or not.
And yes, it sucks that it was WD only, I missed that issue as well.
This is the one I was talking about, the way we were all talking, it was supposed to be in an upcoming WD with rules update. If I can't get it anymore I'm going to be mad because I had NEVER seen this thing ANYWHERE before it was posted here. I was under the impression it was coming out in this week's WD.
I hate asking this, but if anyone has the digital version, could you shoot me a screen cap of it's entries?
It was released for free to those who had the Warhammer mobile app as well. Message me for a copy of the PDF. (Since GW gave it out for free I assume this isn't against the rules here)
After browsing through the new WD, it seems that the new ranking system could add some cool bonuses. There's the High King rank (Princeps for Mechanicus Knights) such as Tybalt of House Terryn, who have a single vertical stripe down their carapace to denote rank, then we have the Barons, with two vertical stripes. What is noteworthy about the Barons though, is that there seems to be five varieties of them; regular Barons, with the two stripes.
Herald, with a crenellated pattern along the top if his tilt shield.
Gatekeeper, with a cross behind the House coat of arms on the tilt shield.
Master of Judgement (such an awesome title, and my Knight, Vidar, aboard Silent Arbiter, is getting this repaint when they release colours for House Hawkshroud Barons. I'm guessing white.) With a stripe along the top of his tilt, along with a triangle coming up from the bottom, until it touches the stripe.
Kingsward, with a 4 checkered pattern on his tilt, like a 5th Company SM icon.
All Barons have the dual stripes to set them apart.
Finally we have Vassal Knights, regular scheme.
It is also confirmed that after building one carapace weapon, you can still build a second with the leftovers.
"It’s worth noting the Imperial Knight kit is still available. Parts from the two kits are interchangeable so, if you already own an Imperial Knight, or want to add another one to your collection, you can also add a missile pod or Icarus autocannon array – whichever you have spare after building your Knight Warden, Gallant or Crusader. It’s as simple as painting it to match and slotting it into the carapace socket." - page 9 in the epub edition.
Why does the Crusader look like it has Coaxial Bolters on the Gatling Cannon and a Coxial Stubber on the Battle Cannon thing? Is that an aesthetic choice or an actual thing?
SharkoutofWata wrote: Why does the Crusader look like it has Coaxial Bolters on the Gatling Cannon and a Coxial Stubber on the Battle Cannon thing? Is that an aesthetic choice or an actual thing?
The coax stubber on the RF Battle Cannon has been a thing since the first IK release. I believe the normal setup for the Gatling Cannon is an undermount heavy flamer, unless I missed a picture of it with a different undermounted gun, which would imply that you have a choice of weapon for that spot.
SharkoutofWata wrote: Why does the Crusader look like it has Coaxial Bolters on the Gatling Cannon and a Coxial Stubber on the Battle Cannon thing? Is that an aesthetic choice or an actual thing?
The coax stubber on the RF Battle Cannon has been a thing since the first IK release. I believe the normal setup for the Gatling Cannon is an undermount heavy flamer, unless I missed a picture of it with a different undermounted gun, which would imply that you have a choice of weapon for that spot.
The Gatling Cannon comes with a heavy flamer mounted underneath, no other weapon options replace that one. The shoulder-mounted heavy stubber however can be replaced by a regular meltagun.
yeah,
Got a few brush off emails...
Basically worthless lip service that GW customer service accepts returns if still shrink wrapped...
Nothing that addresses the short lifespan of the 2014 codex.
Spoiler:
Sirs,
I feel compelled to write to you about the new Imperial Knight codex appearing so soon!I already thought the old codex was poor value with only two unit entries. This is made worse when it only lasted a single year before you outdated it.
Do you have any kind of voucher or a trade in discount plan you will offered to customers of the 'old' book?
Yours sincerely,
Gary
Hi there Gary,
Many thanks for your email. I'm sorry you are unhappy with your current codex however I am unable to discuss any future releases. Should any product you have still be in saleable condition (ie, in the shrink wrap), you can of course return it to any Games Workshop for a full refund.
Thank you,
Sophie
Games Workshop Customer Service
Hello,
I do appreciate you acknowledging the unhappiness the short life span of my current codex has caused me.
Please feel free to respond to my dissatisfaction again as soon as you can officially acknowledge and respond to the existence of a 'New' Knight codex. As an early adopter of knights, and proud owner of three, I hope you can do something.
I hate feeling like I was duped by a company I both enjoy and respect.
Gary.
Hello,
Just noticed that the newer knight codex just previewed officially.Any chance you can do something for owners of the 'old' one?
Gary.
Hi Gary
Thanks for the email.When did you purchase your previous book? Do you still have the reciept or proof of purchase at all?Kind regards,
Lydia.
Games Workshop Customer Service
Lydia,
I bought it at launch 2014.I wasn't expecting to need another one in 2015! I don't have the receipt.
Gary.
Hi Gary,
If your codex is still in new condition (so therefore unread, still in shrink wrap for example) we would be able to exchange it for you. Unfortunately if it is not in this condition I am afraid we would be unable to exchange it for you .If you would like to return the book, please do get in touch.
Thank you,
Sophie
Games Workshop Customer Service
Hello,
My codex is one year old.Purchased at the 2014 launch of the Knights. The 2015 codex invalidates my codex. I'm shocked GW thinks it ok to invalidate rules within 1 year.
I've spoken to lots of other GW fans about this abrupt replacement. The consensus is that the 2014 codex was probably premature with only 2 units! What's next new admech, skitarii and harlequins codexs in 2016? We're hoping this doesn't become the norm, it will push players away from the game.
I believe that updating every year is unacceptable without some sort of upgrade offer or voucher.In an ideal situation, because GW replaced the codex so quick, I'd like to be able to trade my 2014 codex for the 2015 codex?
Right now GW is doing nothing but demanding my loyalty.
That's not how I feel it should work.
Thanks,
Gary Keenan
TLDR - GW Don't Care if you bought the 2014 codex to field your knights.
Should they? I mean, I'm not defending it, but if you look at a book and think "This is only worth having if it's going to last X years before being "invalidated", which there is no guarantee it will"... do *not* buy the book, because you're going to have a bad time.
Buy a codex because you like the contents and want to have it, don't buy it because it's your license to play that army in tournaments or whatever for the next 4-5 years - that just isn't the model anymore and hasn't been for a while.
I didn't buy the 2014 Knight book because with 2 unit entries in it, it was objectively a gak book. Besides, the basic Knight rules were in WD, so I mean...
Bull0 wrote: Should they? I mean, I'm not defending it, but if you look at a book and think "This is only worth having if it's going to last X years before being "invalidated", which there is no guarantee it will"... do *not* buy the book, because you're going to have a bad time.
Buy a codex because you like the contents and want to have it, don't buy it because it's your license to play that army in tournaments or whatever for the next 4-5 years - that just isn't the model anymore and hasn't been for a while.
I didn't buy the 2014 Knight book because with 2 unit entries in it, it was objectively a gak book. Besides, the basic Knight rules were in WD, so I mean...
I would agree with you if this was the norm, but replacing a codex in a year is not something they have done before, and as such those who bought it could not be expected to understand the limited lifespan of the book at all.
I thought it was a crock from day one, but plenty bought it, and I think they are right to feel this new one is something of a slap in the face.
They have cause to be annoyed in that the original book was weak, and that the new version looks better, but that was more of a good reason not to buy the original book rather than a reason to deserve a refund now there's a better one. You decided at the time you wanted the book, weaknesses and all, you bought it, you've used it, there's nothing stopping you from continuing to use it except that you want the stuff in the newer version (and/or you want to play in tournaments I guess? I don't really know how that works but I assume you need to use the latest rules in tournaments).
It rarely pays to be an early adopter, and GW would be crazy not to release a better book if they've got one in them - since it'll sell more Knight boxes. For those whose butts aren't hurt about a newer version coming out, this newer, rumoured to be better book is a good thing!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Of course, the better option would be to release a free supplementary PDF or something with extra gubbins in, to be used in conjunction with the previous Knight book, but to GW's perverse way of thinking that's leaving money on the table... "free" is a dirty word to modern GW :(
So they are essentially the exact same thing though. Like... two "new" things on the "new" one, but none of the Heraldry for other Houses. Dammit, GW. You had this one chance! If they had put the other House heraldry in the new kit, it would have been a smart push for those looking for them just from a sales pov.
C'est la vie. Time to get back on eBay and look for some House Griffith decals.
Bull0 wrote: Should they? I mean, I'm not defending it, but if you look at a book and think "This is only worth having if it's going to last X years before being "invalidated", which there is no guarantee it will"... do *not* buy the book, because you're going to have a bad time.
Buy a codex because you like the contents and want to have it, don't buy it because it's your license to play that army in tournaments or whatever for the next 4-5 years - that just isn't the model anymore and hasn't been for a while.
I didn't buy the 2014 Knight book because with 2 unit entries in it, it was objectively a gak book. Besides, the basic Knight rules were in WD, so I mean...
Actually the hard back book was invalidated a matter of a few months after its release due to an FAQ. I am in the same camp as Panic here and by the way Panic, GW has not responded to my email.
Bull0 wrote: Should they? I mean, I'm not defending it, but if you look at a book and think "This is only worth having if it's going to last X years before being "invalidated", which there is no guarantee it will"... do *not* buy the book, because you're going to have a bad time.
Buy a codex because you like the contents and want to have it, don't buy it because it's your license to play that army in tournaments or whatever for the next 4-5 years - that just isn't the model anymore and hasn't been for a while.
I didn't buy the 2014 Knight book because with 2 unit entries in it, it was objectively a gak book. Besides, the basic Knight rules were in WD, so I mean...
Actually the hard back book was invalidated a matter of a few months after its release due to an FAQ. I am in the same camp as Panic here and by the way Panic, GW has not responded to my email.
We shouldn't be surprised about this. They'd give you guys the exact same answers to emails if you bought last years codex this Friday thinking it's the new one. They'd probably also tell you they "hope you enjoy it." They sell something with a designed obsolescence; they're not going to feel guilt or remorse they're gonna pat themselves on the back for selling the "new book."
It's not that I don't understand the complaint, it's just that my advice is not to buy codices thinking "I need this to play X army for the next X years", buy it because you like the book and the contents and let all other considerations be secondary since they're totally unpredictable. That way you aren't going to be disappointed!
The only primary concern for buying a codex is for the army rules. Fluff and pics really are secondary, especially as much of it is rehashed in the existing factions and if you've been around the carousel at least once you'll already own much of it.
It is totally reasonable to buy a codex expecting 3 years+ wear out of it because, well, decades of precedent.
That said, even this situation wouldn't be irredeemable if in WD or somewhere they acknowledged the situation and just said "we really felt the need to expand the IK book, and we hope you appreciate we're doing this for the benefit of the game." Or something similar, rather than their usual asshattery from behind the fortress wall.
Personally, I'm now thinking that last year's release was a rush job to try and prop up the sales figures and this book is, in reality, the finished version of the IK book.
It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.
So people shouldn't have been enthusiastic about a fantastic new model and shouldn't have bought the necessary rules supplement to field them because there may have been an unprecedented update in 12 months?
If I'd been looking to buy the new codex for a new faction this time last year, there'd have been plenty of reasons I may have considered for and against the purchase, but being replaced next year wouldn't have entered my thinking.
I'm sure people will be fine with others running the old book, as long as they don't want to use any of the expanded options that the new one offers.
Bull0 wrote: It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.
Bull0 wrote: It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.
You are just trolling at this point, right?
Actually, I totally agree with Bull0. The original Codex Imperial Knights was JUNK. There were 7 pages of game material, and basically nothing more than some painting schematics in the rest of the book. There was barely any fluff, and really NO reason to buy it. You can literally photocopy all the useful pages in 1 minute.
I purchased the original book (though not right away), because we usually play at my place, and I have a full set of books that we refer to. However, I knew going in that it was junk, and I knew that I was going to complain forever that I paid a bunch of money for junk.
The NEW book might be slightly better value. Maybe not, or maybe just barely. There is probably still so little content that it's easily photocopy-able; after all, no matter how you cut it, we're still talking about 5 variations of 1 kit. I mean, imagine Codex Space Marines based on only Rhino chassis models, or Codex AM based on only chimera models.
Either way: the lesson is, don't buy a book unless you see value in it (or don't care, and want it anyhow), because no matter how long it takes to replace it, or how short, a crap book is a crap book. Frankly, the ideal situation would have been if nobody bought the original crap book, and they quickly came out with a replacement better book. OTOH, none of my friends, who all own most of the books, bought IK (they left it to me, yay). The solution is not to complain about the replacement better book, it's not to buy a crap book in the first place.
In comparison, the 6e SM book was wonderful. I've had great use from it, and it was a great improvement over its predecessor. 2 years later a 7e SM book -- if it's as good as the 6e one, I won't mind paying for it at all. It's not how much a book cost me, it's how much enjoyment/entertainment that I derived from it and how useful it was to my hobby and game time.
Thanks, I was afraid the crusader would be pricey.
100+ more points than a WK. People are going to raise hell for that.
Really, really glad the Gallant is a lot cheaper. Might take those if they can take the good missile option, giving it some shooting on top of a load of D CC attacks.
Any word on the formations? That is what I am dying to hear about. And I wonder if GW will toss out an FAQ for the AdLance to allow these new Knights... won't hold my breath, of course.
yeah,
The previous normal codex cycle release was 3-4 years with some codex going 7 or more between editions.
There was no indication this was a stop gap codex and the full codex would come out next year.
This a New codex released the year after the first is unprecedented.
Bullo is correct I feel foolish purchasing a codex with only two units that lasted only 1 year.
@Panic - the problem, really, is that the v1 codex was not more than White Dwarf content packaged into a $50 hardcover. My issue is not really with the v2 codex; I mean, why not replace a junk book. Just because some people (including me) bought it doesn't make it any less crappy
@Wilson - thanks for posting up the new knight points. In wonder if early snapshots of the codex will leak today...
Bull0 wrote: It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.
No, the reason i bought it was because the rules which were featured in the WD at the time didn't have a bunch of the new charts - it told you the weapon needed the d-weapon chart but didn't give you said chart or the stomp chart either; we were still using 6th edition at the time so you HAD TO buy the codex just to get the stupid charts - and now i'm a mug for buying it without knowing the FAQ would cut the entire codex?
I have every right to be f~*#ed-off with GW for that - what exactly was i supposed to do then? develop the power of fore-sight so i'd know there were only two profiles?
Bully for you that you are happy to wait for over a year to use your new model with a book that you're satisfied with; but i expect rules at the same time as a model release and i also expect not to have my codexes invalidated within a matter of months..
Panic wrote: yeah,
The previous normal codex cycle release was 3-4 years with some codex going 7 or more between editions.
There was no indication this was a stop gap codex and the full codex would come out next year.
This a New codex released the year after the first is unprecedented.
Bullo is correct I feel foolish purchasing a codex with only two units that lasted only 1 year.
Panic...
Kinda glad I dodged that release then. Might go for it this time around though, now there's 5 (full plastic) and the FW variants to pick from.
Bull0 wrote: It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.
You are just trolling at this point, right?
Either way: the lesson is, don't buy a book unless you see value in it (or don't care, and want it anyhow), because no matter how long it takes to replace it, or how short, a crap book is a crap book. Frankly, the ideal situation would have been if nobody bought the original crap book, and they quickly came out with a replacement better book. OTOH, none of my friends, who all own most of the books, bought IK (they left it to me, yay). The solution is not to complain about the replacement better book, it's not to buy a crap book in the first place.
The logic here is making my head spin.
Certainly the people who bought the IK codex saw value in being able to use their Knight models in games and tournaments. The value in the IK codex, and really in any gaming book, is the acceptance of that iteration of the rules among the larger gaming community. The fluff and pictures are secondary to the rules that allow you to play your games. Arguing that people should have known better and avoided buying the IK codex just comes across as pure smugness granted through the magic of hindsight.
People absolutely are entitled to be upset by the obsolescence of the IK codex because a 1-year life-span for a codex is a new thing. Going forward yours and Bullo's arguments might have a bit of merit because a precedent will have been set with the IK codex's short span, but to act like buyers of the first IK codex are in any way responsible for GW pulling a dickish move is ridiculous.
If there is any lesson here it isn't to avoid "crap books" (whatever the hell that means) but rather to expect all products released by GW to have aggressive planned obsolescence.
yeah,
Looking at the dates on the old and new Knight sprues. It looks like there is years difference.
Main sprues 2013 and the new upgrade sprue is 2014.
So it is likely that GW had no idea they would create the extra Knights versions until after the Knights were a success.
It makes sense that they needed a new book.
I just feel they should offer something to the early adopters who made the knights a success rather than punish them by invalidating their book 1 year later.
How much would it harm sales to have something like trade in your old book for a upgrade sprue to keep 'old' knight players happy!?
Should we all wait one year before we buy into any new ranges.
Will Skitarii and Harlequins get HQs in 12 months time and a new codex?
Will Admech get a tank in 8 month and a new codex?
Should we ignore all new ranges for two years till they settle down?
Certainly the people who bought the IK codex saw value in being able to use their Knight models in games and tournaments. The value in the IK codex, and really in any gaming book, is the acceptance of that iteration of the rules among the larger gaming community. The fluff and pictures are secondary to the rules that allow you to play your games. Arguing that people should have known better and avoided buying the IK codex just comes across as pure smugness granted through the magic of hindsight.
People absolutely are entitled to be upset by the obsolescence of the IK codex because a 1-year life-span for a codex is a new thing. Going forward yours and Bullo's arguments might have a bit of merit because a precedent will have been set with the IK codex's short span, but to act like buyers of the first IK codex are in any way responsible for GW pulling a dickish move is ridiculous.
If there is any lesson here it isn't to avoid "crap books" (whatever the hell that means) but rather to expect all products released by GW to have aggressive planned obsolescence.
You misunderstand me. The dickish move by GW is in the FIRST IK book being junk, not in replacing the it with a second book (which might also be junk -- we don't know yet). It's not the buyer's "fault" in either case, but there is a lesson to be learned in not buying something that has no value in it (like a book devoid of rules), because it will probably be replaced with something that is actually useful, later on. I'm actually happy that a junk book is being replaced, although of course I would be happier if it were simply supplemented with something in GW. Or, put another way, GW could have waited another 5 years, and the value of the first book would still have been close to nil.
The number of times that our group has collectively opened my IK book (the only copy that any of us have, though everyone has photocopies of the few pages of actual content) in the last 10 months can be measured on the fingers of my hands.
So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?
Bull0 wrote: It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.
You are just trolling at this point, right?
Either way: the lesson is, don't buy a book unless you see value in it (or don't care, and want it anyhow), because no matter how long it takes to replace it, or how short, a crap book is a crap book. Frankly, the ideal situation would have been if nobody bought the original crap book, and they quickly came out with a replacement better book. OTOH, none of my friends, who all own most of the books, bought IK (they left it to me, yay). The solution is not to complain about the replacement better book, it's not to buy a crap book in the first place.
The logic here is making my head spin.
Certainly the people who bought the IK codex saw value in being able to use their Knight models in games and tournaments. The value in the IK codex, and really in any gaming book, is the acceptance of that iteration of the rules among the larger gaming community. The fluff and pictures are secondary to the rules that allow you to play your games. Arguing that people should have known better and avoided buying the IK codex just comes across as pure smugness granted through the magic of hindsight.
People absolutely are entitled to be upset by the obsolescence of the IK codex because a 1-year life-span for a codex is a new thing. Going forward yours and Bullo's arguments might have a bit of merit because a precedent will have been set with the IK codex's short span, but to act like buyers of the first IK codex are in any way responsible for GW pulling a dickish move is ridiculous.
If there is any lesson here it isn't to avoid "crap books" (whatever the hell that means) but rather to expect all products released by GW to have aggressive planned obsolescence.
Not trolling and resent the accusation thanks - just trying to share the (apparently mindblowing) idea that it isn't worth buying GW books as an investment, you should only buy them if you like the content of that book objectively as it stands. Nobody's acting like it's the buyers' fault, but IK is hardly the first book to have been superceded disappointingly quickly nor the first one to be very poor value (look at most of the recent 40k codices that are the previous book, minus all the flavour, with warlord traits and a couple of formations chucked in. Yay).
As for whatever the hell avoiding crap books means - well, if a book has two unit profiles in it, it's a load of crap, don't buy it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: Either way: the lesson is, don't buy a book unless you see value in it (or don't care, and want it anyhow), because no matter how long it takes to replace it, or how short, a crap book is a crap book. Frankly, the ideal situation would have been if nobody bought the original crap book, and they quickly came out with a replacement better book. OTOH, none of my friends, who all own most of the books, bought IK (they left it to me, yay). The solution is not to complain about the replacement better book, it's not to buy a crap book in the first place.
Yeah, exactly - that's the point I was trying to make. You're a lot more expressive than I.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Panic wrote: I just feel they should offer something to the early adopters who made the knights a success rather than punish them by invalidating their book 1 year later.
How much would it harm sales to have something like trade in your old book for a upgrade sprue to keep 'old' knight players happy!?
Should we all wait one year before we buy into any new ranges.
Will Skitarii and Harlequins get HQs in 12 months time and a new codex?
Will Admech get a tank in 8 month and a new codex?
Should we ignore all new ranges for two years till they settle down?
Early adopters should be rewarded not punished.
Panic...
I agree with all of this - they shouldn't be doing it, and they should be throwing the early adopters a bone - *ALL* I'm trying to say and getting a ton of unneccessary heat for is that since we know what GW's MO is by now it doesn't make sense to treat their books as investments and you should only get them if you like the content of that book and are happy with it. Apparently acting rational when people have an axe to grind is enough to get you called a troll, etc. Nice.
@Vallonzek pls share the special rules when you have them
@Warboss - The first book was a crappy book, and that's a dick move. If the second book is good, and comes soon after, I guess, I'm happy they obsoleted a crappy book and will go ahead and purchase it. If it sucks, too, then it's just a double-dickish move, and I won't buy it And the next time GW releases a book with $50 book with 7 useful pages, I'll pass.
Talys wrote: I didn't see the link anywhere so sorry if I'm duplicating it. Here are the stat sheets for each of the new knights; the sheets come with the new kit:
so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.
warboss wrote: so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.
This is a good point.
Would we accept a Space Marine book in 2015 and another in 2016 ?
I don't think even dakkas swear filters could handle that gak storm!
GW will ride this one out because the first book had only 2 units, it needed more, it needed updating.
But the fear is that they will do this and think 'got away with that!!!'
Which is why people should email them.
even if it's just a single line.
Talys wrote: I didn't see the link anywhere so sorry if I'm duplicating it. Here are the stat sheets for each of the new knights; the sheets come with the new kit:
@Vallonzek pls share the special rules when you have them
@Warboss - The first book was a crappy book, and that's a dick move. If the second book is good, and comes soon after, I guess, I'm happy they obsoleted a crappy book and will go ahead and purchase it. If it sucks, too, then it's just a double-dickish move, and I won't buy it And the next time GW releases a book with $50 book with 7 useful pages, I'll pass.
Can someone post these up on a work-friendly host (not imgur, either... sigh)? It would be appreciated.
warboss wrote: So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?
The Knight was one of the single greatest models the year it came out, but even then people took issue with a whole faction and codex being built around a single model with only 2 unit choices. Its not a problem with "could it have been better" or by how much it could have been better... its a problem with how easily it could have been better. Despite the strong design of the basic model and heraldry, the release as a whole is lacking. When a company asks top dollar for its products people expect as much more effort to go into that product. GW half-wayed it with its first go around, and while we're "fortunate" enough to be graced with this second book that is what we should have had the first go around, even with this update there is still a halfassed-ness to this release too.
Admittedly there wasn't the greatest distinction between all the different Knights in Epic, and there was no reason to expect direct translations, but GW's approach has further diminished those distinctions. Although we pay $140 for this knight kit, given its sprue sizes it doesn't take that much more effort than the various other vehicle kits like the Land Raider. If other armies can get releases of 4 or 5 kits than a whole army based around a single model should get at least a second model and not just an add-on sprue.
We're still waiting on the book and maybe we'll be surprised, but I'm doubtful given what I've seen of the Warden's rules. The lack of distinction and half-model release culminate in a book that continues to fail to present Knights as a real army. FW managed to it by giving upgrades that established clear roles and by establishing some resemblance to a FOC. Its not a misguided FW fanboy thing, its only to say GW will hopefully put in as much effort and come up with something that acoomplishes the same.
warboss wrote: so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.
No, not really. I don't really want to buy a yearly refresh unless there's new content or the old book really is broken. In the case of IK, both are true, and I'm a fool for buying the first book (but I knew that going in, so I wasn't fooled... I was just foolish). They should have just included the useful information in the book with the, you know, ONE kit, and sold the book as fluff for anyone who wanted it.
For me -- just my preference -- a 2 year refresh is ok (especially if new stuff has been released in between), and a 3 year refresh is perfect. 4 is really long in the tooth (ok for minor factions or supplements), and any more than that is just way too long and feels ignored. I get that everyone has a different preference.
Also, I would vastly prefer a digital subscription where I could pay the $X and have access to current books, and they'd refresh it as often as they damn well pleased. My friends & I have talked about this at length, and the consensus amongst us is:
- $25 / mo for access to everything including campaign supplements - $18 / mo for access to core rules + all faction rulebooks - $11 / month to access to core rules +3 faction rulebooks - $8 / month to access core rules + 1 faction rulebook
10% discount for prepaying 1 year, 15% discount for prepaying 2 years, 20% discount for prepaying 3 years.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: It's a "new sheet" but it appears to have the exact same decals as the old ones, just the bottom section is laid out slightly different.
Yep, that scores a "meh" from me. No Griffith.
I only have two of the old "extra" sheet, so I can make a household of...2. Bleah.
At least I can make a wide variety of the named Freeblades. I quite like some of their color schemes.
warboss wrote: So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?
warboss wrote: so if the first book had the let's say 14 (double the knights, double the pages?) useful pages last year and they just replaced it this year with some tweaks like most codex releases, you'd be OK with rebuying the same quality product largely unchanged a year later? That was the hypothetical question. I guess it boils down to if you're OK with buying a book you like and think is worth it knowing that it will only be valid for a year.
No, not really. I don't really want to buy a yearly refresh unless there's new content or the old book really is broken. In the case of IK, both are true, and I'm a fool for buying the first book (but I knew that going in, so I wasn't fooled... I was just foolish). They should have just included the useful information in the book with the, you know, ONE kit, and sold the book as fluff for anyone who wanted it.
For me -- just my preference -- a 2 year refresh is ok (especially if new stuff has been released in between), and a 3 year refresh is perfect. 4 is really long in the tooth (ok for minor factions or supplements), and any more than that is just way too long and feels ignored. I get that everyone has a different preference.
We're not as far apart as I thought then. For me, 4 years is perfect. Three is grudgingly ok only if there are issues and there is an edition change inbetween that exacerbates it. Five is ok but starting to get as you put it long in the tooth and I'd be itching for new stuff. Under no circumstances do I accept as a consumer that a 1-2 year life cycle is fair. If they fethed up so badly that they absolutely need to come out with something in that time period, they should publish ALL of the additional or corrected material for free as a PDF download as a mea culpa for fething up so badly and not simply charge their player base for their own mistake. If they as a hundred million dollar corporatation can't plan their flagship product more than 12 months in advance, that added cost of incompetence should be shouldered by them, not us.
So I own a store and just placed my GW orders for the week. Did my knight orders and brought up the whole knight codex only being around for one year and a lot of people are mad about it. According to my GW rep they didn't really sell any knight codexs and didn't even have to do a reprinting. So the numbers were more in their favor to make a new codex. I brought up how my business is only 4 months old and only one customer has bought a knight codex. Since that sale was in the last 3 months my GW rep sent me a free copy of the Knight codex to replace that customer's old one. Pretty nice of him. I suggest to any players who just recently got Knights to talk to their FLGS to see if they can get a free replacement. With that said. Please don't abuse the system if you really bought the codex a year ago but are claiming you just recently got it. There is always that one guy who ruins it for the rest of us.
Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)
Also on the being an owner side of all these new releases. I hate it. So many things are coming out every week that my customers can't keep up with it or save money for it. And as a business owner I have to spend more money on my weekly orders of GW product for brand new stuff than what I sale a week. Sure I don't have order it but then I run risk. Customer comes in, doesn't see the hot new item they wanted and walks out, don't place my orders and GW is out of stock for months (tomb blades) and as a brand new store in the DFW area I can't afford to have those mistakes with so much competition (some who do more of an insane discount) all within an hour drive from my store.
FSWG wrote: Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)
With apple, your phone doesn't magically stop working when the next model comes out and you can use it just fine with folks who have the new version. With a codex or edition rulebook, it effectively does as the vast majority of gamers only play against the current release with the current rules. As for videogames, they get plenty of flak for yearly rinse-lather-repeat releases but I do admit there are enough folks out their to make it profitable. I don't see that iterative yearly schedule as something to look forward to. In any case, that isn't the standard in THIS industry and is almost as appropriate as using produce as an example (you have to keep rebuying your fruit after each use! It's ridiculous and such a scam!).
Yeah,
I love how people keep trying to excuse this break to custom and practice by pointing out flawed examples of other industries practices.
Cars, Videogames and now GW pointing the blame at Apple!
Why not point at library cards??
its Free and you can have 3 of your local GW store's codexs at home at once?
FSWG wrote: Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)
With apple, your phone doesn't magically stop working when the next model comes out and you can use it just fine with folks who have the new version. With a codex or edition rulebook, it effectively does as the vast majority of gamers only play against the current release with the current rules. As for videogames, they get plenty of flak for yearly rinse-lather-repeat releases but I do admit there are enough folks out their to make it profitable. I don't see that iterative yearly schedule as something to look forward to. In any case, that isn't the standard in THIS industry and is almost as appropriate as using produce as an example (you have to keep rebuying your fruit after each use! It's ridiculous and such a scam!).
Is this really true? I'm being sincere. I can see tournaments requiring you to use the latest version of any given army list, but outside of tournaments, unless you were obviously doing it because a previous book was more powerful (had some cheesy WAAC list in it, let's say) do people really refuse to play with someone using an older army book? Do we have some research that proves that the vast majority of gamers play that way? I'm assuming not, and that's purely anecdotal.
A lot of the upset here is dependent on this idea that when a new book comes out the old book vanishes in a puff of smoke, but personally I don't really buy it outside of the tournament scene. If I went into a local game club with my old edition DE book and said "yeah, I'm still using this one, they didn't add anything with the new one they just took away characters I liked so I didn't buy it" are you really saying you're sure I'd be met with an awkward silence until I grudgingly left?
With the case of the Knights book, isn't the main difference going to be that the new book has more options in it? So if you turned up with your old book, with the 2 existing unit profiles in it, who'd be able to call you a powergamer with a straight face?
Bull0 wrote: Is this really true? I'm being sincere. I can see tournaments requiring you to use the latest version of any given army list, but outside of tournaments, unless you were obviously doing it because a previous book was more powerful (had some cheesy WAAC list in it, let's say) do people really refuse to play with someone using an older army book? Do we have some research that proves that the vast majority of gamers play that way? I'm assuming not, and that's purely anecdotal.
A lot of the upset here is dependent on this idea that when a new book comes out the old book vanishes in a puff of smoke, but personally I don't really buy it outside of the tournament scene. If I went into a local game club with my old edition DE book and said "yeah, I'm still using this one, they didn't add anything with the new one they just took away characters I liked so I didn't buy it" are you really saying you're sure I'd be met with an awkward silence until I grudgingly left?
With the case of the Knights book, isn't the main difference going to be that the new book has more options in it? So if you turned up with your old book, with the 2 existing unit profiles in it, who'd be able to call you a powergamer with a straight face?
I just think this whole premise is *very* flawed
I agree with that last part but I think we're talking about two different things. And, yes, it's sincere. Is there some leeway? Absolutely. Alot of gamers (but not all) would accept the use of the "old" codex in the couple weeks to maybe a month post release but once you start getting more than a month out then you're pretty much SOL for pickup games with strangers. Tournies and sponsored leagues are the same generally. Once you get more than a couple months out, I suspect you'll get a fair amount of comments about your cheapness and "no thanks" in return for offers of games. Have I both used and allowed old codex books in games personally? Yes, but I ask ahead and only do so with friends that know ahead of time. This isn't only the case with GW games either. The standard is that you play with the most current version of the rules both for the game and army and, until GW decided to adopt the iterative yearly rinse lather repeat and microtransaction DLC till you bleed pattern of the videogame industry, it was a reasonable standard to adopt and still is for everyone but the extra special GW.
FSWG wrote: Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)
Reminds me of that old Meme on 9gag about the Apple user conditions and stuff where it says" Do not try to eat Apple products" and the caption said "Apple users, are special, veeeerry special, the kind that take a special bus to go to a special school", could'nt help but chuckle when i saw your post and remember this...
Also, if someone wants an Iphuck 7s, it is his choice to give 2000$ for it, he has no obligation for this, someone else very well still continue to use his 100$ samsung galaxy phone for another year, GW its like " you either buy it, or you quite, your call pal", you don't have a choice.
It's not the same thing though and you're bringing in oranges to the apple fight. Comparing it to android devices is like bringing mantic into the discussion. The better comparison would be you can if you choose upgrade to the new model 7s (the new codex with new units, cheaper costs, and str D!) but you can also continue using without any issue your old 4s from a few years back. In any case, the original comparison is null and void because GW shouldn't be able to take all the benefits of the comparison (bilking folks yearly for largely the same thing) without the disadvantages TO THEM (still being able to use your old products without any difficulty for many years after the new model comes out). In any case, it might be better to go back to the knight models instead of the fleecing financial codex plan that accompanies their release.
FSWG wrote: So I own a store and just placed my GW orders for the week. Did my knight orders and brought up the whole knight codex only being around for one year and a lot of people are mad about it. According to my GW rep they didn't really sell any knight codexs and didn't even have to do a reprinting. So the numbers were more in their favor to make a new codex. I brought up how my business is only 4 months old and only one customer has bought a knight codex. Since that sale was in the last 3 months my GW rep sent me a free copy of the Knight codex to replace that customer's old one. Pretty nice of him. I suggest to any players who just recently got Knights to talk to their FLGS to see if they can get a free replacement. With that said. Please don't abuse the system if you really bought the codex a year ago but are claiming you just recently got it. There is always that one guy who ruins it for the rest of us.
Thanks for sharing your experiences. That is very cool of the GW rep. Props
I believe that you can stock balance (return) some items, including books once a year, too, right? So you have the ability to return old codex still on the shelf, like Eldar, SM, IK, etc. that won't sell.
Now the argument of the codex being one year old and you have to buy it to play the game with knights. I told my rep that and he had a strong counterpoint. Apple and phone companies upgrade their devices every year and people buy it. Yes those companies will do some kind of program for you turning in your old phone, but what about videogames. Sports videogames like Madden come out with a new one every year and you have to buy it to play the latest game. I think us GW players have been lucky that we expect a book to last 4 years. What GW is doing is nothing new in the business industry, they are just finally doing it. Now a subscription would be a great thing or return your old book or something. I would like to find some middle ground that GW could meet us players half way. (like lowering the damn price)
I would love a subscription service. Ironically, I'd still buy all the paper copies of the main books, because I happen to like paper. But I'd skip new releases like Skitarii and IK until they were more beefy, and
A better video game analogy -- which Games Workshop is obviously adopting the model of -- is DLC (Downloadable Content). Video games used to be $60. Now, they're $60 + 3-5 addon packs that are $10-20 each, bringing the total price over 18 months to $120, at which point they release the next game. On the plus side, you can play the original game and just ignore all the DLC if you so choose. Essentially, this is what is happening with Codex releases, Supplements, and Dataslates.
I don't think the iPhone analogy is that great, because the useful lifespan of electronics is very short compared to miniatures. One of my Blood Angels Assault Squads **that I still game with** was built in the 80's (Rogue Trader, original Space Marines plastic kit). I don't think I have anything that plugs into the wall that's that old, and I don't think I've ever kept a cell phone for longer than 3 years. Also, electronics benefit from advances in RAPID technology and software innovation, whereas miniatures have gotten better, but not by THAT much, and not THAT much faster.
All that being said, it is what it is. People should not get into 40k now, if they want a game that they buy and essentially stays the same for many years; this just isn't GW's vision, and rapid release cadence is now their thing, for better or worse.
Also on the being an owner side of all these new releases. I hate it. So many things are coming out every week that my customers can't keep up with it or save money for it. And as a business owner I have to spend more money on my weekly orders of GW product for brand new stuff than what I sale a week. Sure I don't have order it but then I run risk. Customer comes in, doesn't see the hot new item they wanted and walks out, don't place my orders and GW is out of stock for months (tomb blades) and as a brand new store in the DFW area I can't afford to have those mistakes with so much competition (some who do more of an insane discount) all within an hour drive from my store.
In fairness, I don't think (most) customers should be encouraged to buy **everything** that Games Workshop pumps out for 40k. I mean, there are some crazy people (like me) that buy almost everything, but there is no chance that I'll ever paint it all, unless GW goes out of business AND I live to be a thousand years old. Practically, most people will collect 1-3 factions, and have anywhere upwards to 5-6 rulebooks. There really aren't that many models that come out for any particular faction on a regular basis.
For example, since 2014:
- Knights came out about a year ago and are now getting 1 upgrade sprue (at a pretty reasonable price, too)
- Dark Eldar got one Archon and Succubus model, and it's not like the old ones stopped working; plus two Haemonculous releases.
- Blood Angels got new Tacticals (yay!) but again, they don't supersede the old ones. The Assault Terminators, yes, but really... the only reason to play them is fluff.
- Necron got one whopping Overlord model.
- Eldar got 3 solid models. But, when was the last time they got anything nice?
- Tyranids got a couple of cool models and the drop pod.
- Harlequins and Skitarrii are new, so there are lots of kits. But it's not like you have to run out and buy them if you play Space Marines, Imperial Guard, or Orks, you know what I mean?
Yeah, I'm missing a few factions that were updated, but you get the idea. Whether you play Space Wolves or Imperial Knights, it's not like you need to be running out to your FLGS and buying new stuff every week. I'm sure if you played Khorne, you were very excited to see the new Bloodthirster; if you played Tyranids, the drop pods were exciting, et cetera.
And while it's nice to have a shelf full of black-spined hardcover rulebooks, it's hardly important to buy ALL of them.
Azreal13 wrote: How do I use a Knight Crusader with the old book?
You wait for it to appear on kickass, download and print off the pages you want in A4. Should fit perfectly into your knight codex.
Or, you buy the model, and use the dataslate that comes in the box. The pics that person on 4chan snapped looks pretty complete to me (with all the options, etc.). How were you going to play a Knight Crusader without buying one anyhow?
Why are people arguing about the codex? GW found another way to squeeze more money out of people. It's not like they weren't doing it before. It's just that they got better at it now.
If they were competent in their codex releases it would be one thing, if they were releasing a bunch of codexes in a year to balance the game, well massive props to them then. But lol, of course they aren't doing that. They are just trying to make money.
My suggestion to you all is if you don't like that there is a second Knight codex after one year, don't buy it. Unless you play in tournaments where they demand evidence you own the rules, why bother? People dissect the rules online in depth, there's your rules for you.
I don't think GW doing this but I think the Apple analogy isn't one they should make. People buy new Iphones because as their Iphone gets older, updates and new releases are no longer optimized for the older phone and hiccups that start because of it. For the most part it doesn't bother people so much because Apple has its business cycled laid out so phones start failing when people would start considering replacing them, but with any shred of intent its actually quite insidious. Imagine if after a random amount of time, you were to take your car in to be serviced and they were to update the computer controls on the engine, and as a consequence of this the manufacturers newer cars aren't just more efficient but your older vehicle is now less efficient than before and thus burns more gas per mile than previously. In that way they could push people who drive their vehicles more than the 100,000 miles to go upgrade. That's what Apple does systemically. Apple may not be doing that intentionally but it is systemically imposing a designed obsolescence. When I was studying engineering, the first chapter in our ethics class was literally on designed obsolescence and how no matter how appealing it is innately unethical no matter how its justified. Once you start doing something like this, it becomes too tempting to push that point of failure to 90,000 miles or replacement after 2 years instead of 3 years.
This is certainly the perception of what GWs done but its a bit misplaced. GWs mistake is the lack luster first release followed shortly by a second lackluster release. All I can say is at least we didn't have to wait as long as Dark Eldar or Sisters of Battle.
@aka - I don't think that most companies sabotage their own products, whether GM or Apple or GW. Every company wants to dip into your wallet as frequently as possible. For a company like GW, one would hope this means more products their customers want, rather than more products their customers don't want.
On one hand, yes, the whole IK codex thing does not make me very happy, mostly because I think last year, 1 codex for effectively 1 model was crazy. It's barely better this year. I also wish AdMech had been 1 book.
On the other hand, I looked forward to every other book (and model) release since 7e, so this is hardly a pattern.
Obviously Games Workshop is sitting on decades worth of background and fluff that they could, in theory, flesh out and release models for.
I don't know what determines the tipping point when one release or update or new model gets pushed to market, but I highly doubt it is simply a bunch of guys sitting around with beers staring at each other saying "Well, what should we launch next month?" There are probably master release calendars that span many years into the future, just so that they can keep their army of creative writers, sculptors, visual artists, editors, marketers, etc all on track with manageable workloads and schedules.
Maybe last year they decided "You know what? We haven't gotten all the kinks worked out for the rules/mold/whatever for the Imperial Knights, but they are scheduled to drop in four months, so let's make the necessary edits and give the community the best we can." Then they turned to whoever's department was screwed up and said, "You have a year. Fix it." So now this is happening.
The alternative would have been no Knights at all. I think we all have thoroughly enjoyed having the new array of large models in Warhammer 40,000 over the past year, and I think that 7th Edition would not be nearly as popular without the Imperial Knights to grab peoples' attention (whether or not they ever actually buy and play one).
Do I like buying a new codex when I haven't even gotten my knight assembled and painted to use the last one (which, by the way, is no longer in the iBooks store... meaning if my computer crashes, it may be gone forever... but that's a separate rant)? No. Would I rather have not had an Imperial Knight codex at all? Definitely not.
My love of the hobby, the setting, and the game is greater for each and every new thing Games Workshop releases. Call me a fanboy... or just a fan. I love this hobby.
The alternative would have been no Knights at all. I think we all have thoroughly enjoyed having the new array of large models in Warhammer 40,000 over the past year, and I think that 7th Edition would not be nearly as popular without the Imperial Knights to grab peoples' attention (whether or not they ever actually buy and play one).
No, the alternative would have been at worst a white dwarf article for $5 with all the rules for the new knight variants. Another would have been a free pdf with the same since they fethed up so badly that they feel the need to replace a product less than a year after first printing. The one they chose is simply the greediest and most expensive option.
Hulksmash wrote: Ug.....460pts for a decently equipped Crusader....No bueno.
Yeah, not happy about that.
I'm also not happy that tournaments are banning 50% of my armies because wraithknights happen to be undercosted.
Pray tell? Knights arent LoW, they get around the 1 LOW rule
There's a rumor that they will be in the new codex. Regardless, NOVA and my local store have both banned superheavies/gargantuans for their 40K tournaments.
Hulksmash wrote: Ug.....460pts for a decently equipped Crusader....No bueno.
Yeah, not happy about that.
I'm also not happy that tournaments are banning 50% of my armies because wraithknights happen to be undercosted.
Pray tell? Knights arent LoW, they get around the 1 LOW rule
There's a rumor that they will be in the new codex. Regardless, NOVA and my local store have both banned superheavies/gargantuans for their 40K tournaments.
Lame. Tell them to toughen up and play some 40k and not Banhammer.
Azreal13 wrote: Oh silly me, I should have, of course, specified legally because this is the internet.
Tell me, would your response to "how do I get a Ferrari" be "break into a Ferrari owners house and steal their keys?"
You could just buy the White Dwarf that has all the rules and points in it. $6 codex for the new knights, 100% legal.
I was under the impression that it didn't have all the variants. Am I mistaken or you?
I don't have the WD, but I do know it lists the weapon profiles, and the kit itself contains the statline, options, and cost for all variants (including the old variants, but appears to not list the weapon profiles). So if you buy a kit, and a WD, you have all the rules to run an unbound knight army.
aka_mythos wrote: Imagine if after a random amount of time, you were to take your car in to be serviced and they were to update the computer controls on the engine, and as a consequence of this the manufacturers newer cars aren't just more efficient but your older vehicle is now less efficient than before and thus burns more gas per mile than previously. In that way they could push people who drive their vehicles more than the 100,000 miles to go upgrade. That's what Apple does systemically. Apple may not be doing that intentionally but it is systemically imposing a designed obsolescence. When I was studying engineering, the first chapter in our ethics class was literally on designed obsolescence and how no matter how appealing it is innately unethical no matter how its justified. Once you start doing something like this, it becomes too tempting to push that point of failure to 90,000 miles or replacement after 2 years instead of 3 years.
Hmm, I don't think this example works, and I don't think you can compare phones to GW business. First, I'd say designed obsolescence would require some intent behind it - the line is hard to draw, of course, but I don't think any phone manufacturer does it intentionally, just because it'd be bad PR. They just match the parts reliability and software support to the expected lifespan of a product, for more efficient pricing. At some point, most people have replaced their model anyway, so investment in more expensive, more durable parts and support personnel time don't pay off anymore. However, it should be noticed that you can still use your old phone for years, just without all the latest updates.
I'd say phones are like the car industry - you buy a model today and you can use it for 20 years, but at some point it becomes more difficult to find spares for it as there's less and less of those around. You could design one to last for 50 years with spares manufacturing and other support to match, but if everyone wants a new model after 5-10 years, what's the point to support it? Of course the ethical side to this question is, how long should a product last anyway - a more green way to look at it would be thinking how to expand the lifespan a bit, especially if you can get customers to pay a bit of extra for that quality.
Moving on to GW, I'd consider codexes more like a licensing a product - you pay to be able to play with your minis with the latest rules. Why people are pissed off about rapidly appearing new editions, is that when you buy a new one, you'd expect it'd last for something like 3 years. This is how you calculate the lifespan cost. When the next one appears after 1-2 years, you feel cheated because you had to replace it earlier than you thought, and now your costs have suddenly gone up. What would be fair from GW would be either to price the product so that you don't mind getting a new one every year, or supporting the codex until the expected lifespan ends, for example by publishing free updates.
GW actually takes a PR risk with it's behaviour of not giving you an expected lifespan, or supporting a product through it. I cannot fault any customer who complains about it, really, if GW doesn't give out any info what to expect with your product. IMO it's another sign of poor management, as anyone with a degree in management should be familiar with product revenue strategy and how does it affect customer behaviour - especially when GW is looking for people to buy a long-term investment into 'the hobby'.
I actually say in the first line I don't think it's an analogy they should make. That this example they drew to themselves and is an imperfect one and would make them out as worse than I think they actually are.
My discussion of cars is only to relate what Apple does and to express why I think the analogy GW made of itself doesn't fit.
On the ethics of obsolecence and how long should a product should last... It should last as long as it's useful. If you design into a product a point at which it ceases to be useful you are encroaching on a persons ownership. Things are designed to last atleast so long and not to completely fail at a given point. In this age of blurred ownership rights companies can cause premature failure by altering the thing which they retain ownership.
In terms of what GW the only thing that fits this is how they pull the older versions of ebooks from the App store preventing people who own the from having continued access.
I don't have the WD, but I do know it lists the weapon profiles, and the kit itself contains the statline, options, and cost for all variants (including the old variants, but appears to not list the weapon profiles). So if you buy a kit, and a WD, you have all the rules to run an unbound knight army.
Yes, I believe that is correct. If you go back a page or so, I linked photos of what comes in the kit for rules, which actually looked really nice.
The formations should be on bloodofkittens, and anyhow discussed ad nauseam on dakka soon.
yeah,
I'd be pissed if I had a game planned today and had just replaced my iPad...
Has anyone who bought the iPad version called them to ask why the can no longer download their Codex.
Especially since it's still valid until the new one is released.
Removing the old digital edition is a bit of a misstep on GW's part, I'm sure its covered in the T&Cs but it does nothing for customer relations for those who actually buy rather than obtain the digital product.
I brought the codex last year when it came out, played it about twice and switched to the HH IV list as it was much more rounded codex to play. I've had codex like that over the years were I just haven't gotten along with it and I've not really played that army as a result. If I wasn't such a horder I would have sold off that army at the time.
I can see why GW won't offer an exchange or discount option for early adopters but again it doesn't nothing for customer relations.
It surprises me time and time again why "miniatures making" and "certanly not gaming" company even demanding money for the rules? Rule should be like bonus, like catalog to help sell models. It's like schizophrenia.
Reinokarite wrote: It surprises me time and time again why "miniatures making" and "certanly not gaming" company even demanding money for the rules? Rule should be like bonus, like catalog to help sell models. It's like schizophrenia.
It's a lie equal to the "forge the narrative" crap.
I just noticed the cards for the new Knight codex were $16...this is getting really annoying. I liked the idea of the cards when they first came out, when they were selling sets of them at like $8, which is pretty reasonable in my opinion. But they've been steadily increasing now and then to the point where they've literally now doubled. Add to that the realization that those card sets will be obsolete after barely a year or two anyway and it's kinda killed my desire to buy the damn things anymore. Another classic example of GW having a good idea and then fething it up, I guess.
Kinda doing the same thing with codices, too, honestly. Getting sick of buying them.
warboss wrote: So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?
Hulksmash wrote: Ug.....460pts for a decently equipped Crusader....No bueno.
Yeah, not happy about that.
I'm also not happy that tournaments are banning 50% of my armies because wraithknights happen to be undercosted.
Pray tell? Knights arent LoW, they get around the 1 LOW rule
There's a rumor that they will be in the new codex. Regardless, NOVA and my local store have both banned superheavies/gargantuans for their 40K tournaments.
I believe NOVA on banned the lance formation so you may want to recheck that.
Sidstyler wrote: I just noticed the cards for the new Knight codex were $16...this is getting really annoying. I liked the idea of the cards when they first came out, when they were selling sets of them at like $8, which is pretty reasonable in my opinion. But they've been steadily increasing now and then to the point where they've literally now doubled. Add to that the realization that those card sets will be obsolete after barely a year or two anyway and it's kinda killed my desire to buy the damn things anymore. Another classic example of GW having a good idea and then fething it up, I guess.
Kinda doing the same thing with codices, too, honestly. Getting sick of buying them.
warboss wrote: So if the first book had rules for the yet to be released knights and they replaced it with just a tweaked book with nothing new one year later that, in your opinion, isn't a dick move?
BoLS posted some pics from the book and this was one of them. Maybe they are fleshing out more of the Houses on the LE Decal sheet. I think this one is pretty gorgeous and hope they do Vulker as well.
And of course, because I am desperate - if anyone is looking to part ways with the Griffith or Mortan decals, hit me up.
Talys wrote: A better video game analogy -- which Games Workshop is obviously adopting the model of -- is DLC (Downloadable Content). Video games used to be $60. Now, they're $60 + 3-5 addon packs that are $10-20 each, bringing the total price over 18 months to $120, at which point they release the next game. On the plus side, you can play the original game and just ignore all the DLC if you so choose. Essentially, this is what is happening with Codex releases, Supplements, and Dataslates.
Though DLC stops feeling like a good idea around the point where content was obviously cut from the initial release (or left locked on the disc in some cases!) so that it could be released later to wring out a bit more cash.
I've still got the 2E Chaos codex on a shelf somewhere, and it has three variant lists (Red Corsairs, Daemon World, Chaos Cult) also in it for no extra cost over other codexes of the time. Wonder what that package would cost me these days?
Talys wrote: A better video game analogy -- which Games Workshop is obviously adopting the model of -- is DLC (Downloadable Content). Video games used to be $60. Now, they're $60 + 3-5 addon packs that are $10-20 each, bringing the total price over 18 months to $120, at which point they release the next game. On the plus side, you can play the original game and just ignore all the DLC if you so choose. Essentially, this is what is happening with Codex releases, Supplements, and Dataslates.
Though DLC stops feeling like a good idea around the point where content was obviously cut from the initial release (or left locked on the disc in some cases!) so that it could be released later to wring out a bit more cash.
I've still got the 2E Chaos codex on a shelf somewhere, and it has three variant lists (Red Corsairs, Daemon World, Chaos Cult) also in it for no extra cost over other codexes of the time. Wonder what that package would cost me these days?
That's easy. $40 USD each on top of the $50 codex.
Though DLC stops feeling like a good idea around the point where content was obviously cut from the initial release (or left locked on the disc in some cases!) so that it could be released later to wring out a bit more cash.
No different than The Hobbit being split into 3 parts (holy crap, that was annoying), or Mockingjay into 2.
The truth of it, however, is that were it not for DLC, the game would simply cost twice as much or be split into multiple titles. I don't like it any more than you, but a more positive way to look at it is that if you don't like the game, you only spend half as much -- so the second instalment payment is due if you want to keep playing it So, for instance, I liked Ryse: Son of Rome, but not enough to reward them with more money.
it further goes to show how entertainment prices have outpaced inflation -- inflation averages around 2-3% per annum depending on the year you start measuring from (it was much higher in the 80s than 90s), whereas luxury entertainment goods sit somewhere closer to 4% per annum.
Talys wrote: A better video game analogy -- which Games Workshop is obviously adopting the model of -- is DLC (Downloadable Content). Video games used to be $60. Now, they're $60 + 3-5 addon packs that are $10-20 each, bringing the total price over 18 months to $120, at which point they release the next game. On the plus side, you can play the original game and just ignore all the DLC if you so choose. Essentially, this is what is happening with Codex releases, Supplements, and Dataslates.
Though DLC stops feeling like a good idea around the point where content was obviously cut from the initial release (or left locked on the disc in some cases!) so that it could be released later to wring out a bit more cash.
I've still got the 2E Chaos codex on a shelf somewhere, and it has three variant lists (Red Corsairs, Daemon World, Chaos Cult) also in it for no extra cost over other codexes of the time. Wonder what that package would cost me these days?
That's easy. $40 USD each on top of the $50 codex.
Correction - zero, cos' they won't be doing those lists any time soon suckaz!
Though DLC stops feeling like a good idea around the point where content was obviously cut from the initial release (or left locked on the disc in some cases!) so that it could be released later to wring out a bit more cash.
No different than The Hobbit being split into 3 parts (holy crap, that was annoying), or Mockingjay into 2.
And they're criticized for it and deservedly so. In the end, in every industry, you'll always have folks that look past blatantly anti-consumer moves because fanboi. GW (as well as Fox, Paramount, Sony, MGM, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc) are counting on that. I do my part and I don't financially support things that I don't agree with. I won't buy the eldar codex that was prematurely replaced "for balance" according to the fanbois prior to the release despite having an eldar army. I don't own any knights so this codex doesn't apply to me beyond just a theoretical disgust (both at the content and the production schedule). I didn't both seeing the hobbit in theaters nor buy any dvds because I didn't approve of the blatant cash grab trilogy despite seeing all three LOTR movies in the theatre (two at midnight release showings) and buying multiple dvd sets of it. I know my personal lack of patronage doesn't break the camel's back but it hopefully will make the stupid animal pause. The same holds true for me with digital products like microtransactions and DLC both in retail and F2P games.
Bull0 wrote: It was definitely a rush job, and buying it was a bad idea. People who bought it because, Ok, it's a crap book, but it's my way of playing Knights, are the ones who are disappointed by the news. So really my advice is not to buy crap books. If it was a good book, you wouldn't be disappointed, because it's still a good book. The rules don't evaporate when newer ones come out; I'm sure outside of tournaments you're fine to continue using them for a while yet.
And the new hobbyists just get burned on the deal. I'd been in the hobby for maybe a month at that point. The only info I was getting at the time about the knights was from my local GW and the white dwarf. You had to have the codex in order to play the knights and with those info sources, you had no idea if more stuff was in the codex or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: cards are still 12.50USD, they've gone up slightly, since blood angels, but not by much. You're looking at some other country.
Knights were a 6ed release, they had to be faq'd when 7th came out.
This is really what the first book should have been.
And I wasn't happy over the last few months when I noticed that they dropped the price on the old knights codex to $33 USD. I know I paid more than that for the stinking thing when it first came out.
There's a very good reason why I never replaced that codex after the fire.
Panic wrote: yeah,
My book is invalidated at tournaments.
They all require a player to have the most recent codex.
The sheet in the box isn't a codex and doesn't have all the options the most recent codex has.
No weapon profiles, warlord traits or relics.
Panic...
To add some places and FLG and even a GW once requires you have the book on hand. hell i got in trouble for printing out my own personal copy of BL codex (which i even showed proof of purchase)
Some leaks it would seem... Couldn't link everything for some reason. But the formations seems rough. Looks like a boosted version of adamantine lance as well...
Oh wow. Baronial giving Overwatch and the Shield Wall is nice. The Skyreaper is also very nice! I mean, for the S7 Icarus guns, that re-roll is huge! I can see running that for sure.
Not too disappointed with what I am seeing thus far, except for the point costs.
Panic wrote: yeah,
My book is invalidated at tournaments.
They all require a player to have the most recent codex.
The sheet in the box isn't a codex and doesn't have all the options the most recent codex has.
No weapon profiles, warlord traits or relics.
Panic...
Serious tournament players aren't likely to care as long as the new book is better (it has more options in it, so it is). Lack of weapon profiles on those sheets is a bit of a bummer I guess. The old book had warlord traits and relics in it, right? So it's just that there are new ones. Or did it not have them? If so, holy hell, more evidence for that "You guys bought a total turkey" argument
Was hoping that the Gallant had some special rule or the like to justify taking a Knight that's mostly melee. But aside from being able to field a Knight cheaply I'm not really seeing the use of this type.
No, the old book had the two weapon load outs and a Warlord table, plus a ludicrous "roll a d6 to see if my guy gets better or worse" option instead of a proper Knightly ranks system you pay points for, but no heirlooms/relics.
It was a poor book, but there was utterly no reason to not buy it if you wanted to run Knights as a PD because it was the only option and no logical reason to anticipate a replacement this soon.
bubber wrote: Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?
Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.
Yeah, either that or they allow LOWs, in which case Eldar armies will up up to the brim with Wraithknights (since the big "disadvantage" was that they were LOW).
I'm hoping they still with the no-LOW policy and set a point in the sand for how crazy they'll allow things to get.
bubber wrote: Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?
Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.
It actually knocks IK out of the tournament scene, at any tourney that limits number of LoW -- which is to say, lots of them. Not that this bothers me personally, as I never really imagined 40k as a game of armies composed primarily of 4-5 giant walkers. There isn't anything wrong with that; it's just not my thing.
bubber wrote: Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?
Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.
Yeah, either that or they allow LOWs, in which case Eldar armies will up up to the brim with Wraithknights (since the big "disadvantage" was that they were LOW).
I'm hoping they still with the no-LOW policy and set a point in the sand for how crazy they'll allow things to get.
Well, Mike's last blog post was aware about the change to IKs becomeing LoW and he said NOVA was sticking to its guns with no GC or SHLoW.
bubber wrote: Am I right in thinking that Knights are now Lords of War then?
Yep. And that means they are out for NOVA, no IKs or Adamantine Lance, etc.
It actually knocks IK out of the tournament scene, at any tourney that limits number of LoW -- which is to say, lots of them. Not that this bothers me personally, as I never really imagined 40k as a game of armies composed primarily of 4-5 giant walkers. There isn't anything wrong with that; it's just not my thing.
I'm more than ok with that as well. I do kind of miss the days when tactical squads, dreadnoughts, and Land Raiders were on the table.... maybe next edition, haha. I definitely do want to see 40k completely devolve into Apocalypse.
Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
I don't mean to belittle your concerns (and I do hope I do not), but this to me is the same as someone who is upset that they can't run a Warhound in their tournament. It may be fun for you to use, but it is absolutely unenjoyable playing games where half of your army can't do a single thing against the attackers. Knights may not be unbroken, but they are beyond bland to play against, and a full army is much, much worse. And when I say "can't do a single thing," I mean they *literally* cannot do anything. That's different than when things are stupid-powerful like with invisibility, where damage is statistically very very low but not entirely unattainable.
I realize of course we're talking about tournaments and the goal is supposed to see who the best tactician is, but there are obviously limits to what is acceptable in the games (i.e. the Warhounds). Things like Knights are great, they're beautiful kits and they look awesome. They just don't work well in this large-scale skirmish we have called 40k. Awesome in Apocalypse, but out-of-place in smaller affairs.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
I don't mean to belittle your concerns (and I do hope I do not), but this to me is the same as someone who is upset that they can't run a Warhound in their tournament. It may be fun for you to use, but it is absolutely unenjoyable playing games where half of your army can't do a single thing against the attackers. Knights may not be unbroken, but they are beyond bland to play against, and a full army is much, much worse.
I realize of course we're talking about tournaments and the goal is supposed to see who the best tactician is, but there are obviously limits to what is acceptable in the games (i.e. the Warhounds). Things like Knights are great, they're beautiful kits and they look awesome. They just don't work well in this large-scale skirmish we have called 40k. Awesome in Apocalypse, but out-of-place in smaller affairs.
And I disagree, somewhat. They are tough, yes. Absolutely! But you are talking at most 5 models at 1850, which means bare-bones. More like 4, usually. But I can see your point, I just think the kneejerk banning is amusing. Especially from my perspective where "comp" was reviled here in the US for years, until 6th and 7th, where suddenly everyone was trying to change the game - because you can only change it, not fix it, no matter what is banned, someone will get left out. And here I sit, on a Knightly Household in the making, and very few events I can attend if I wanted to show them off during gameplay. In the end, I can find tournaments where there aren't as many restrictions, so it isn't the end of the world, but the "big ones" are off the table sadly.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
So out off all those impressive 500+ gallery pics you uploaded, you can't make any legal multidetachment force you like for tournies? Or is the above just for dramatic effect (posted from a chase with your arm over your forehead)? Regardless of personal feelings that super heavies NEVER belonged in regular games let alone whole armies of them, you're not exactly giving TOs a reasonable chance to reevaluate and respondent to this apparent change before playing the "woe is me" card.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
So out off all those impressive 500+ gallery pics you uploaded, you can't make any legal multidetachment force you like for tournies? Or is the above just for dramatic effect (posted from a chase with your arm over your forehead)? Regardless of personal feelings that super heavies NEVER belonged in regular games let alone whole armies of them, you're not exactly giving TOs a reasonable chance to reevaluate and respondent to this apparent change before playing the "woe is me" card.
Yeah, for every person with a super heavy army getting "chased out" of tournaments, I think they're losing a lot or regular players who would like to see their squads of Space Marines do more than instantly explode from a round of shooting from these massive vehicles.
Otherwise, I wish they'd just bring back Epic and people could get out their titan fancies that way.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
So out off all those impressive 500+ gallery pics you uploaded, you can't make any legal multidetachment force you like for tournies? Or is the above just for dramatic effect (posted from a chase with your arm over your forehead)? Regardless of personal feelings that super heavies NEVER belonged in regular games let alone whole armies of them, you're not exactly giving TOs a reasonable chance to reevaluate and respondent to this apparent change before playing the "woe is me" card.
A bit hostile, yes? I paint commissions, so pretty much nothing in my gallery is mine. Nice though, way to be rude.
And "Regardless of personal feelings that super heavies NEVER belonged in regular games let alone whole armies of them" is an opinion. I love super-heavies. I routinely read about them in the various BL novels and think they add a neat, expensive unit to the game that often isn't game-breaking, just game-changing. Which is healthy, imo.
And Knights and other super-heavies have been in 40k for a while. Hardly a sudden thing, so plenty of time to accumulate the "woe is me" card I threw down . I am sure some events that did let them in have some data on whether they were detrimental or not, too. So, again, maybe stop trying to change the game to fit the perception of balance and let it work the kinks out on its own? Just a thought.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
So out off all those impressive 500+ gallery pics you uploaded, you can't make any legal multidetachment force you like for tournies? Or is the above just for dramatic effect (posted from a chase with your arm over your forehead)? Regardless of personal feelings that super heavies NEVER belonged in regular games let alone whole armies of them, you're not exactly giving TOs a reasonable chance to reevaluate and respondent to this apparent change before playing the "woe is me" card.
Yeah, for every person with a super heavy army getting "chased out" of tournaments, I think they're losing a lot or regular players who would like to see their squads of Space Marines do more than instantly explode from a round of shooting from these massive vehicles.
Otherwise, I wish they'd just bring back Epic and people could get out their titan fancies that way.
To be fair, plenty of non LoW units do that and then some. Drop Pod in front of Tau. Stand up against the new Scatterlaser Jetbikes. Get blasted by a Vindicator. Losing a unit isn't new to 40k. It just means you have to learn to play better than your opponent. Isn't that how it has always been?
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Well, this chases players like me out of any semblance of tourney scene, because I love the model and own a lot of them and am barred from playing due to the perception of power-gaming by others. A shame.
So out off all those impressive 500+ gallery pics you uploaded, you can't make any legal multidetachment force you like for tournies? Or is the above just for dramatic effect (posted from a chase with your arm over your forehead)? Regardless of personal feelings that super heavies NEVER belonged in regular games let alone whole armies of them, you're not exactly giving TOs a reasonable chance to reevaluate and respondent to this apparent change before playing the "woe is me" card.
Yeah, for every person with a super heavy army getting "chased out" of tournaments, I think they're losing a lot or regular players who would like to see their squads of Space Marines do more than instantly explode from a round of shooting from these massive vehicles.
Otherwise, I wish they'd just bring back Epic and people could get out their titan fancies that way.
To be fair, plenty of non LoW units do that and then some. Drop Pod in front of Tau. Stand up against the new Scatterlaser Jetbikes. Get blasted by a Vindicator. Losing a unit isn't new to 40k. It just means you have to learn to play better than your opponent. Isn't that how it has always been?
It has definitely gotten worse over the last many editions, but LOWs represent a point where units can literally do absolutely NO damage to the entire army (4-5 walkers) and so they serve to sit around and get vaporized. I think what it really comes down to is the fact that a good portion of your army becomes invalidated fighting all super-heavies. Things like griffon mortars serve no role in the game other than to just sit there and die for the entire battle. It's just not a fun experience, the other player doesn't even get the opportunity to try to hurt the other army (even if the chances are incredibly slim).
My sarcasm (not hostility) was less than commensurate with your level of unnecessary drama. I could have responded to your dramatic image of you and fellow knight players being "chased" out of tournies by elaborating the scene with ignorant reactionary gamer townsfolk armed with tiny pitchforks made of extra bloodthirster weapon bits (because everyone knows to only use the D axe in tournies!) running behind you as you throw your now useless knight carcasses behind you in an attempt to slow down the mob but I didn't.
You of course ignored the part where you're painting the above apocalyptic scenario within days of the release of this new book whidespite it obviously not being enough time to even get together to consider if a change is needed to allow knights their super special unicorn pass into non-LOW events. If anyone is jumping the gun prematurely, it is you and not those "chasing" you out of tournaments. Also, supers and gargs have only been legal in normal games without expansions for the past year. Please don't misrepresent the facts by throwing in Epic to justify allowing a knight into a 500pt game.
warboss wrote: My sarcasm (not hostility) was less than commensurate with your level of unnecessary drama. I could have responded to the overly dramatic image of you and fellow knight players being "chased" out of tournies by ignorant reactionary gamers armed with tiny pitchforks made of extra bloodthirster bits (because everyone knows to only use the D axe in tournies!) desperarely throwing your now useless knight carcasses behind you in an attempt to slow down the mob but I didn't.
You of course ignored the part where you're painting the above apocalyptic scenario within days of the release of this new book whidespite it obviously not being enough time to even get together to consider if a change is needed to allow knights their super special unicorn pass into non-LOW events. If anyone is jumping the gun prematurely, it is you and not those "chasing" you out of tournaments. Also, supers and gargs have only been legal in normal games without expansions for the past year. Please don't misrepresent the facts by throwing in Epic to justify allowing a knight into a 500pt game.
Wow are you just hung up on that word "chasing" or what? Whew. Take a break, go outside and get some fresh air. I was hardly evoking any "drama", just stating that TOs, in their effort to "fix" 40k, exclude players based on perceptions of imbalance. Sheesh, And I didn't even mention Epic... so I don't even know what you are getting at. And I don't read sarcasm from your posts, just hostility. Then again, this is the internet... it does that.
If they're doing it, it is because there is a general consensus about that imbalance amongst their playerbase and you just happen to have a different perception. In any case, a pause would do us both and the thread some good. For me, an hour or two to do some grocery shopping and for you a few weeks to give TOs time to respond. Who knows, the above woe may be for naught this time next month when the TOs extend the special LOW but not a LOW status back to knights. My ultimate point (as opposed to the accompanying opinion) is that you're prematurely chasing yourself away.
warboss wrote: If they're doing it, it is because there is a general consensus about that imbalance amongst their playerbase and you just happen to have a different perception. In any case, a pause would do us both and the thread some good. For me, an hour or two to do some grocery shopping and for you a few weeks to give TOs time to respond. Who knows, the above woe may be for naught this time next month when the TOs extend the special LOW but not a LOW status back to knights. My ultimate point (as opposed to the accompanying opinion) is that you're prematurely chasing yourself away.
You could be right. Time will tell. I won't start ruling out events just yet.
To digress slightly, I've noticed a few people talking about 'invisibility' - is this a way of playing, a psychic power or something else? Sorry if it's a daft question. Ta.
To digress slightly, I've noticed a few people talking about 'invisibility' - is this a way of playing, a psychic power or something else? Sorry if it's a daft question. Ta.
Psyker power, its pretty nasty, makes the target only able to be shot at by snap shots, and hit in melee by 6s
To digress slightly, I've noticed a few people talking about 'invisibility' - is this a way of playing, a psychic power or something else? Sorry if it's a daft question. Ta.
Psyker power, its pretty nasty, makes the target only able to be shot at by snap shots, and hit in melee by 6s
Cheers mate - I run Typhus so much I forget to look at the generic stuff in the rulebook!!
buying 3 warden boxes is $555 aud but buying 2 warden and one paladin costs $525 but 2 of the extra sprues should have enough bits to make one of each of the new knights I hope.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So a little rule lawyering here, but the Baronial Court says "3-5 Imperial Knights (any type)"
Would that include the FW ones? Cause the wording Any Type leads me to believe it does.
Unless forgeworld changes the data sheets it would seem so.
The real FAQ question that I see in terms of FW rules interaction is the heirloom that gives a 6+ invulnerable to non-ion shielded facing and the knight lancer. The heirloom says it acts as an ion shield plus it's rules but the lancer has the ion gauntlet so does that mean it gets both? Probably not but an example of some cleanup FW will have to do with this release.
@WrentheFaceless - I think it would allow FW IKs! Well, I'd allow it in any of my games, for sure.
I just picked up my copy of the Codex. My store was really nice, actually, and sold me the new codex at 40% off, because I have bitched so many times about the first IK codex being a heap of dog poo. I told 'em I'd bring back the old one and they could do whatever they wanted with it Maybe GW will let them stock balance it or something.
Picked up the new Imperial Knight (Warden) too -- the instruction booklet is really beautiful, with full page stat pages for each knight, as we saw, and the new sprues look solid. I passed on the IK datacards, though (that's like, the first set of cards I haven't bought in ... forever, lol... I just don't think I'll ever play IK primary detachment).
Also got WD 67: the Kastelan Robots really do look... silly.
WrentheFaceless wrote: So a little rule lawyering here, but the Baronial Court says "3-5 Imperial Knights (any type)"
Would that include the FW ones? Cause the wording Any Type leads me to believe it does.
Unless forgeworld changes the data sheets it would seem so.
Maybe this a technicality... but has FW ever released their knights with 40k rules?-I'm only aware of their Knight's rules in the Horus Heresy books and if Marines need an Imperial Armor book to take Horus Heresy era units, shouldn't Imperial Knights as well? I imagine you could play the Horus Heresy armylist, but then I don't think these formations would be available to that army.
Maelstrom808 wrote: FW knights are Questoris and Cerastus knights, not Imperial knights. Won't work with the formations as it stands.
Codex: Imperial Knights:
Cerastus Knight-Acherons may be
chosen as part of a
Codex: Imperial Knights
army as you
would other types of Knight.
Codex: Imperial Knights:
Questoris Knight Magaera may be
chosen as part of a
Codex: Imperial Knights
army as you
would other types of Knight.
Codex: Imperial Knights:
Cerastus Knight-Castigators may
be chosen as part of a
Codex: Imperial Knights
army as you
would other types of Knight.
Codex: Imperial Knights:
Cerastus Knight-Lancers may be
chosen as part of a
Codex: Imperial Knights
army as you
would other types of Knight.
The text on the rules for the four knights on FW's "downloads" section would seem to imply otherwise. Caveat to that, the Magaera is still stamped "experimental rules".
I don' t know if the Styrix rules in HH4 have a similar text. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new IA book with all five of the FW knights in it relatively soon, though.
Talys wrote: @WrentheFaceless - I think it would allow FW IKs! Well, I'd allow it in any of my games, for sure.
I just picked up my copy of the Codex. My store was really nice, actually, and sold me the new codex at 40% off, because I have bitched so many times about the first IK codex being a heap of dog poo. I told 'em I'd bring back the old one and they could do whatever they wanted with it Maybe GW will let them stock balance it or something.
Picked up the new Imperial Knight (Warden) too -- the instruction booklet is really beautiful, with full page stat pages for each knight, as we saw, and the new sprues look solid. I passed on the IK datacards, though (that's like, the first set of cards I haven't bought in ... forever, lol... I just don't think I'll ever play IK primary detachment).
Also got WD 67: the Kastelan Robots really do look... silly.
Would you mind sending me images of the instructions? I'm just very curious as to what is included and what parts go where, as I'm waiting to sell my Plasma obliterator and some other 40k stuff to buy this model. (So expensive on the table and in real life haha. )
Crazyterran wrote: Sure, obsec is nice, but how often do your Knights contest an objective?
OS on knights is amazing. allows you to have an answer to eldar jetbikes turbo boosting onto any objective they want every turn racking up VP's against you.
Crazyterran wrote: Sure, obsec is nice, but how often do your Knights contest an objective?
OS on knights is amazing. allows you to have an answer to eldar jetbikes turbo boosting onto any objective they want every turn racking up VP's against you.
Not if they are in a warhost.
One of the things I thought of aswell, but getting overwatch (marginal) and a 3++ if you are within 6" of another knight is pretty nice.
Crazyterran wrote:So, baronial court is the go to with its ionic shield wall, right? Sure, obsec is nice, but how often do your Knights contest an objective?
Maybe in the big Apocalypse game where you can load up on every model you own, but in a regular game, how often are you going to have a bunch of knights within 6" of each other?
Crazyterran wrote:So, baronial court is the go to with its ionic shield wall, right? Sure, obsec is nice, but how often do your Knights contest an objective?
Maybe in the big Apocalypse game where you can load up on every model you own, but in a regular game, how often are you going to have a bunch of knights within 6" of each other?
Considering you only need to have one other knight nearby, pretty good. Not too much of a stretch to have two teams of two Knights. He'd, can go with my current 1500 knight list of two Paladins, an errant, and a Castigator. Pair the Paladins up, pair the errant and Castigator up, they all get a 3++. At 2000, throw in a warden(or is the crusader the one with two ranged weapons?) or a gallant, depending on if you want more back weapons, or an extra battlecannon. Depending on how much the iwnd relic is, throw that on your warlord.
The gallant is tempting. 50 point discount to make it all about close combat? Throw an iron storm or something on top to weaken up things before you charge, but if you want it get stuck in anyways, fifty points to lose a round of fire?
Crazyterran wrote:So, baronial court is the go to with its ionic shield wall, right? Sure, obsec is nice, but how often do your Knights contest an objective?
Maybe in the big Apocalypse game where you can load up on every model you own, but in a regular game, how often are you going to have a bunch of knights within 6" of each other?
Considering you only need to have one other knight nearby, pretty good. Not too much of a stretch to have two teams of two Knights. He'd, can go with my current 1500 knight list of two Paladins, an errant, and a Castigator. Pair the Paladins up, pair the errant and Castigator up, they all get a 3++. At 2000, throw in a warden(or is the crusader the one with two ranged weapons?) or a gallant, depending on if you want more back weapons, or an extra battlecannon. Depending on how much the iwnd relic is, throw that on your warlord.
The gallant is tempting. 50 point discount to make it all about close combat? Throw an iron storm or something on top to weaken up things before you charge, but if you want it get stuck in anyways, fifty points to lose a round of fire?
crusader has two guns.
I'm thinking the same as you with 2 teams of 2 running around raising hell.
Would you mind sending me images of the instructions? I'm just very curious as to what is included and what parts go where, as I'm waiting to sell my Plasma obliterator and some other 40k stuff to buy this model. (So expensive on the table and in real life haha. )
Would love to help, man, but there are a lot of pages to that instruction booklet. Is there anything in particular you want to know? It's just the old knight + new sprue. You can pretty much guess looking at the new sprue how the extra pieces go together.
shade1313 wrote: I don' t know if the Styrix rules in HH4 have a similar text. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new IA book with all five of the FW knights in it relatively soon, though.
Styrix has a Volkite gun, so I can't see it coming over to 40k land. Even when Conquest wasn't out yet, its sheet was only in the 30k section of the FW downloads page.
yeah,
So it seems that complaining to GW about a new codex after 1 year fell on deaf ears.
Spoiler:
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the email. I'm sorry that our previous emails have not been very clear for you.
The only way that we would be able to do anything for you here would be if your book had still been in its original shrink wrap and in a re-saleable condition, or we had proof of purchase showing that the book was purchased within the last month.
I am very sorry, but in this instance we will not be able to help.
If you need anything further however, please feel free to contact us again.
I emailed my disappointment, but doubt I'll hear from them again.
Spoiler:
Lydia,
Had hoped that GW would understand why people were unhappy with a codex that lasts only one year. I'm disappointed with the refusal to accept something's wrong here.
A codex should last more than 1 year. The length has always been 3+ years.
It's sad GW moved to release books so sooner forcing repurchases if customers want to keep using their models.
I used to be what the community called a white knight... But it's been your repeated behaviour of invalidating products and raising prices that has made me become cynical. For the first time I'm starting to understand why some people pirate codexs blaming rising costs.
GWs refusal at the least offer a reason as to why this is all OK has damaged my loyalty further. This sad state of affairs makes me feel better about moving more of my time and money away from 40k towards FFG's xwing.
I'll also be pledging for Dakkas new game. Hopefully once your companies competition grow strong and you begin to lose market share you'll value your customers more and treat them better.
Disappointed,
Gary Keenan.
The flat refusal to comment on the extra short lifespan of codex knights may be a sign of things to come :(
Well, no new stuff on sale here just yet. The local GW rep is on vacation and as such, everything has ground to a halt, with no orders being fulfilled.
Panic wrote: yeah,
So it seems that complaining to GW about a new codex after 1 year fell on deaf ears.
Spoiler:
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the email. I'm sorry that our previous emails have not been very clear for you.
The only way that we would be able to do anything for you here would be if your book had still been in its original shrink wrap and in a re-saleable condition, or we had proof of purchase showing that the book was purchased within the last month.
I am very sorry, but in this instance we will not be able to help.
If you need anything further however, please feel free to contact us again.
I emailed my disappointment, but doubt I'll hear from them again.
Spoiler:
Lydia,
Had hoped that GW would understand why people were unhappy with a codex that lasts only one year. I'm disappointed with the refusal to accept something's wrong here.
A codex should last more than 1 year. The length has always been 3+ years.
It's sad GW moved to release books so sooner forcing repurchases if customers want to keep using their models.
I used to be what the community called a white knight... But it's been your repeated behaviour of invalidating products and raising prices that has made me become cynical. For the first time I'm starting to understand why some people pirate codexs blaming rising costs.
GWs refusal at the least offer a reason as to why this is all OK has damaged my loyalty further. This sad state of affairs makes me feel better about moving more of my time and money away from 40k towards FFG's xwing.
I'll also be pledging for Dakkas new game. Hopefully once your companies competition grow strong and you begin to lose market share you'll value your customers more and treat them better.
Disappointed,
Gary Keenan.
The flat refusal to comment on the extra short lifespan of codex knights may be a sign of things to come :(
Panic...
Why would you expect a customer service rep to be able to comment on a design team decision?
I think he was expecting the customer service rep to comment/act on a customer service issue, namely the unprecedented replacement of a product only a year old invalidating his purchase. I agree that he shouldn't expect any resolution like a discount or partial credit from GW on this matter (as opposed to a defective product) realistically but he tried and made his feelings known. Whether or not he carries through with his "threat" in the long term is another story.
warboss wrote: I think he was expecting the customer service rep to comment/act on a customer service issue, namely the unprecedented replacement of a product only a year old invalidating his purchase.
That's not really a "customer service" issue though.
No matter how much people think it to be a "customer service" issue, it's a design team issue.
I agree that he shouldn't expect any resolution like a discount or partial credit from GW on this matter (as opposed to a defective product) realistically but he tried and made his feelings known. Whether or not he carries through with his "threat" in the long term is another story.
Which is fine, but at the same time it's pissing into the wind.
And really it seems like the only reason he went for emails is so that he could repost his scathingly witty retorts at the CSR onto the Internet. All of this could have been done just as effectively in a phone call or a physical letter.
Kanluwen, I'm confused, if it is fine, why are your taking a slight issue about what another guy said to GW. Guy has a (1 million percent valid) complaint, complains to the company. That is "fine" as you say. So no need for some weird parsing between "design team" and "customer service."
Whether or not it is pissing into the wind (it is lol), GW needs to be called out on their nonsense.
Azreal13 wrote: People attacking GW provokes a reflex defensive action in Kan, even if he agrees with them!
Maybe. It's just bizarre is what it is. Like, obviously people should complain to a company when they have complaints and do it in the normal way by contacting customer service (Kan seems to be implying to hunt down and then stalk the design team before they can be cornered? Lol). Also, apparently emailing GW (in 2015, the 21st Century ) is an issue worth complaining about? Or is it the fact that (gasp) the complaint was relayed to others? Maybe that's it. But... we are on the internet. It is 2015. People talk to each other here.
Like I said, most bizarre comment I have read all day.
Edited to add before anyone else mentions it. Yes I realize that this has now resulted in me complaining about how someone else is complaining about how someone else complained to GW.
Azreal13 wrote:People attacking GW provokes a reflex defensive action in Kan, even if he agrees with them!
While made in jest, I don't appreciate these kinds of comments.
Super Newb wrote:Kanluwen, I'm confused, if it is fine, why are your taking a slight issue about what another guy said to GW. Guy has a (1 million percent valid) complaint, complains to the company. That is "fine" as you say. So no need for some weird parsing between "design team" and "customer service."
Actually yeah, there is.
The design team is not the same team that's answering your emails when you send an email to the company. And quite frankly, if you read my posts it's not what he said to GW that I "take issue with".
It's the fact that not only did he continually email--but then felt the urge to post the entire email chain, as close to real-time as possible
Whether or not it is pissing into the wind (it is lol), GW needs to be called out on their nonsense.
Which can all be done in a single email.
Look, what response was he really expecting?
For them to roll over and beg for forgiveness while giving him a new Knight book and Datacards?
The best response anyone was going to get was if they bought the book within the return window, they could exchange the old book for the new one with no questions asked. The fact that he kept arguing the point afterwards with what amounts to a customer service goon just smacks of not simply "calling out GW on their nonsense", but rather just wanting a fight for the sake of a fight.
Super Newb wrote:Kanluwen, I'm confused, if it is fine, why are your taking a slight issue about what another guy said to GW. Guy has a (1 million percent valid) complaint, complains to the company. That is "fine" as you say. So no need for some weird parsing between "design team" and "customer service."
Actually yeah, there is.
The design team is not the same team that's answering your emails when you send an email to the company. And quite frankly, if you read my posts it's not what he said to GW that I "take issue with".
It's the fact that not only did he continually email--but then felt the urge to post the entire email chain, as close to real-time as possible
Whether or not it is pissing into the wind (it is lol), GW needs to be called out on their nonsense.
Which can all be done in a single email.
Look, what response was he really expecting?
For them to roll over and beg for forgiveness while giving him a new Knight book and Datacards?
The best response anyone was going to get was if they bought the book within the return window, they could exchange the old book for the new one with no questions asked. The fact that he kept arguing the point afterwards with what amounts to a customer service goon just smacks of not simply "calling out GW on their nonsense", but rather just wanting a fight for the sake of a fight.
Ok, now THIS message of yours replaced your last one as the most bizarre thing I read all day.
I mean, seriously? Why are doubling down on this. Really dude? "Quite frankly" you are actually bizarrely perturbed over this. Nitpicking all sorts of silly little things (again with you mentioning the design team? How is anyone supposed to track down the design team?), stating yet again your disapproval of his oh so horrible action of posting the e-mail correspondence he had with customer service. Because it is SO horrible that he made several e-mails, instead of one, or as you mentioned earlier one letter or phone call. Yes, let's complain about that repeatedly. Because that's normal. No wait, it isn't. It isn't normal to keep complaining that someone made a few e-mails to customer service instead of one. So so so so very strange. Please do yourself a favor and don't respond anymore if all you are going to do is repeat yourself.
Guy has valid, complaint, complains to the GW department that takes complaints. You don't like how he did it (too many e-mails, didn't use the phone or write an mail a physical letter). You keep telling us you don't like it. Cool story bro. No need to repeat yourself again.
Panic wrote: yeah,
My reposting my emails is to show that I'm taking action.
I urge everyone else who is disappointed with this to complain to GW.
Maybe they wil see sense.
I think this has a low chance of success, but not saying anything to GW has a zero percent chance of success. So at least you are trying.
I haven't bought a codex since they split the GK codex into 3. That's my bit of protest. Maybe I should write them a letter about the increasing lack of value their codexes provide...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: "Perturbed" implies an emotional investment. There is none.
Something something 'doth protests too much.' Your bizarre comments speak for themselves.
If you have nothing to add beyond "cool story bro", then maybe you don't actually quite understand my reason for posting what I did.
Wow. Just wow. I give people the benefit of the doubt, but this behavior reflects poorly on you. Obviously I said quite a bit more than that phrase. All you had to do was quote my post. This time you quoted nothing of what I said to you just now, last time you only quoted a few tiny pieces of my first couple of messages to you. It is beyond laughable that you are claiming I have nothing to say when you ignored most of what I said to you. Your behavior is so disappointing.
But hey, don't worry about me replying to any of your posts again.
If this is how you always act, I welcome this development. Hopefully this is just a rare, incredibly strange blemish on an otherwise ok posting history. I'm not going to put you on ignore so I guess I'll see.
FYI, you can order the Imperial Knight Companion again.
I was just going through some old wishlists on the US GW website, and it popped as being available on my wishlist. I just ran a search as a further test and threw one in my cart. (I don't have money to buy one right now, or I'd give it a whirl.)
I would venture they pulled it off the website as a mistake...since it's just a fluff book anyway.
Picked up my Knight kit just now and two things instantly popped out, the tabs of the box now have a bit of flavour text on them "I will uphold the honour of my house" and a makers plate on the bottom one.
Also, the instruction manual is a nice full-colour booklet now with handy painting guides for the big houses.
BrookM wrote: Picked up my Knight kit just now and two things instantly popped out, the tabs of the box now have a bit of flavour text on them "I will uphold the honour of my house" and a makers plate on the bottom one.
Also, the instruction manual is a nice full-colour booklet now with handy painting guides for the big houses.
Oh, painting guides? Now that is nice. I can't wait to get mine.
BrookM wrote: Picked up my Knight kit just now and two things instantly popped out, the tabs of the box now have a bit of flavour text on them "I will uphold the honour of my house" and a makers plate on the bottom one.
Also, the instruction manual is a nice full-colour booklet now with handy painting guides for the big houses.
That sounds nice, though I'd rather they had it as a PDF on the website and made the kit cheaper
Panic wrote: yeah,
So it seems that complaining to GW about a new codex after 1 year fell on deaf ears.
Spoiler:
Hi Gary,
Thanks for the email. I'm sorry that our previous emails have not been very clear for you.
The only way that we would be able to do anything for you here would be if your book had still been in its original shrink wrap and in a re-saleable condition, or we had proof of purchase showing that the book was purchased within the last month.
I am very sorry, but in this instance we will not be able to help.
If you need anything further however, please feel free to contact us again.
I emailed my disappointment, but doubt I'll hear from them again.
Spoiler:
Lydia,
Had hoped that GW would understand why people were unhappy with a codex that lasts only one year. I'm disappointed with the refusal to accept something's wrong here.
A codex should last more than 1 year. The length has always been 3+ years.
It's sad GW moved to release books so sooner forcing repurchases if customers want to keep using their models.
I used to be what the community called a white knight... But it's been your repeated behaviour of invalidating products and raising prices that has made me become cynical. For the first time I'm starting to understand why some people pirate codexs blaming rising costs.
GWs refusal at the least offer a reason as to why this is all OK has damaged my loyalty further. This sad state of affairs makes me feel better about moving more of my time and money away from 40k towards FFG's xwing.
I'll also be pledging for Dakkas new game. Hopefully once your companies competition grow strong and you begin to lose market share you'll value your customers more and treat them better.
Disappointed,
Gary Keenan.
The flat refusal to comment on the extra short lifespan of codex knights may be a sign of things to come :(
Panic...
I don't understand your complaint, the GW hobby is buying stuff from GW, they give you more stuff, although it is almost the same stuff, but it is new stuff you can buy, it is like the new space marine squad stuff, it almost the same stuff, but it is new. Buy it, Hobby objective achieved!
I've had a chance to read through the new codex now and it's a massive upgrade over the previous version, it looks like they took a large part of the sample Knights from the now out of print Companion book and put them in here, along with a handy how-to guide on how to do heraldry for both Imperial and Mechanicus aligned houses.
The background has been changed a wee bit here and there, the codex features plenty of newly commissioned pieces of art alongside those previously featured in the older codex and the Sanctus Reach campaign book, plus Knight formations are now officially called "Lances" more than once, so you babies have something new to cry about now.
Now, the datacard set isn't as great as the Skitarii one sadly, but c'est la vie I suppose.
edit.
It also looks like they removed that silly bit of fluff from the book where the Knights were first intended as labour units where their "battle cannons would be used to mine minerals and their Reapers would be used for logging"
Apparently, that limited edition House Terryn Bankruptcy Lance formation is sold out, which means someone has had to have seen the rules for it floating around on the internets.... right?
Looky Likey wrote: The instructions also have the stats and wargear load out for each of the Knight variants as well, not sure how long GW have been doing that.
I think they started doing that with Nagash. At any rate, they've been doing that for a while now.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Apparently, that limited edition House Terryn Bankruptcy Lance formation is sold out, which means someone has had to have seen the rules for it floating around on the internets.... right?
It was reposted here from a /tg/ thread I think, will be a few pages back now.
em_en_oh_pee wrote: Apparently, that limited edition House Terryn Bankruptcy Lance formation is sold out, which means someone has had to have seen the rules for it floating around on the internets.... right?
It was reposted here from a /tg/ thread I think, will be a few pages back now.
And thus I must wait, for all things /tg/ and imgur related are blocked at work. Was it the House Terryn exclusive? Or just the Baronial Lance?
From /tg wrote:It isn't. There's a general version of it, the Exalted Court, but it's a far cry from the Terryn one.
/tg/ managed to figure out a couple of things so far The Exalted Court of House Terryn.
Formation: The High King (Knight Warden) The Herald (Knight Crusader) The Kingsward (Knight Gallant) The Master of Judgement (Knight Errant) The Gatekeeper (Knight Paladin)
Formation Restrictions: None
The Lords of House Terryn: All models in this formation have the Vehicle (Superheavy Walker, Character) unit type, Weapon Skill 5 and Ballistic Skill 5. As Characters each can choose items from the Heirlooms of the Knightly houses list.
The High King: The High King has Weapon Skill 6 and Ballsitic Skill 6 and adds +1 to all invulnerable saves made due to Ion Shield. In addition, if fighting in a challenge the High King may re-roll failed to-hit rolls. If the High King is the Warlord he always has the Knight Seneschal warlord trait.
The Herald: The Herald and all Imperial Knights from this formation within 12" may re-roll [something]. [blocked] and may fire Overwatch despite being Superheavy Vehicles.
The Kingsward: If the High King is [blocked/something] and suffers a glacing or [blocked]. In addition, [something].
The Master of Judgement: The [something] may re-roll failed [something] charged into close combat.
The Gatekeeper: The Gatekeeper has [blocked] rule. In addition, all ranged weapons [blocked] Interceptor special rule.
It's not complete, but it gets across a rough idea how redacted powerful this formation is.
Just picked up a Titan Fall Kinex Atlas toy on clearance for $20 at A.C.Moore, Toys R Us has them for $30. It's roughly the same bulk as a Cerastus Knight, but more importantly is that it's hands are the same size. So if you are looking for fists to add to your existing Paladins and Errants, this is a source for both right and left hands. Fingers and thumb even have enough articulation to opem and close around something. It is 10.5" tall, so it's about an head height taller than the Cerastus Knight chasis, and dwarfs the plastic Imperial Knight.
Spoiler:
Later tonight I'll get a side by side comparison pic between it, a Paladin, and a Lancer.
I plan on using the fists on my IKs and using the chasis for an Ork Looted Imperial Knight equivalent.
And now Chaos players can officially stop crying about no Chaos Knights. Finally.
Well, hopefully they'll allow us access to lots of Knight variants and not just the ones they've made a kit for, I'd love to do up my knight as a Chaos Gallant
And now Chaos players can officially stop crying about no Chaos Knights. Finally.
Chaos players will never stop crying. The 5th yet to be revealed Warhammer/40k chaos god is Boohoo, the god of whining. That said.. I'm glad they're getting a knight of their own.
Australia, NZ and Asia can already preorder. Central Europe in the next 60 minutes. USA in about 8 hours? You can set the webshop to a country 'in the east' to already see the new products
and wield duel battle cannons or Gatling Cannons? That would be glorious...
Rapid Fire Battle Cannon
Thermal Cannon
Reaper Chainsword
Avenger Gatling Cannon
Thunderstrike Gauntlet
! Objective Secured Knights!
)
