Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Grzzldgamer wrote:
Shells still ejecting from wrong side….

Historically the bolter has had ambi ejectors, so they can wield from either side so not sure that's an issue.

 Hellebore wrote:

Grzzldgamer wrote:
Shells still ejecting from wrong side….

Historically the bolter has had ambi ejectors, so they can wield from either side so not sure that's an issue.

The point of which is that spent (and thus hot) shells eject away from the user so they don’t interfere with visibility and/or get trapped in clothing/equipment.

It sucks that people have begun to lazily use "looks like AI" interchangeably with "it's ugly." Ironically, leaning on that critique without actually being able to critically assess it just gives more cover for AI to infiltrate. It kinds of reminds me how the criticism "bad writing" has ceased to have any meaning in discussions, and is constantly leveled by people who don't read or write enough to recognize good or bad writing in the first place.

All of the major problems in that cover are very human errors, relating to the difficult parts of drawing/painting. Perspective, proportion, composition. It's an ugly cover but it doesn't look like AI.

Index Imperial Knights has been updated - PDF Link.

beast_gts wrote:
Index Imperial Knights has been updated - PDF Link.

Canis Rex at 380 points? I hate him so much, but there's no reason not to take him!

All we lost was some Toughness for Wounds Ala the Chaos Knights Codex, but got to keep our FNP from Noble Lance?

This seems like I will be needing the new Defender model after all, with these points reduction.

All in all, it's the update that we all assumed was coming in the Codex.

Makes me wonder if they're going to update the Combat Patrol next.

The book isn't in line with the rest of the waist, the red ribbon generates a second ribbon from seemingly nowhere, anchored to nothing, and the parchment on the pauldron isn't fixed down with... anything.

It could be AI generated content that was polished a bit. It looks really, really off. The thigh armor is curved like its form fit to musculature?

 Mr_Rose wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Grzzldgamer wrote:
Shells still ejecting from wrong side….

Historically the bolter has had ambi ejectors, so they can wield from either side so not sure that's an issue.

The point of which is that spent (and thus hot) shells eject away from the user so they don’t interfere with visibility and/or get trapped in clothing/equipment.

In their defence: It's an illustration and showing spent shells being ejected on the safe side would not show them at all as the bolter would hide them. Here they seem to be used as an additional indicator of a gun being fired/looking cool at the cost of realism.

Still no option to take an Armiger as a Character. It feels spiteful when Chaos Knights have enjoyed the Stalker since the beginning of 10th edition, and now three Wardogs can be taken as characters. Yet Armigers can operate on their own in Combat Patrol...

They've also withdrawn the 40K kit Questoris kit from sale until they release the codex..."later in the year", which could be bloody Christmas for all we know. If GW expects me to buy a Dominus to lead my Armigers, then I'd be fine with that but not when I can't even use it in 30K. Its bad enough these models are rarely used in games outside of 40K, due to their great size, but even worse when not available in GW's only other 28mm game to feature Knights.

Saying that, the wreakage of a Dominus would easily fill out a Kill Team board...

It's pretty clear that something went wrong with manufacturing of the new Knight kit/book. This is clearly just trying to keep things working until it gets worked out.

SamusDrake wrote:
Still no option to take an Armiger as a Character. It feels spiteful when Chaos Knights have enjoyed the Stalker since the beginning of 10th edition, and now three Wardogs can be taken as characters. Yet Armigers can operate on their own in Combat Patrol...

The only character War Dogs are in a single detachment now, so there's a possibility you'll get a similar detachment in the new codex. Mind, with only two Armiger options I'm not sure why you'd want a detachment just for them.

Interestingly they do retain Battleline so far, but Armigers are definitely a little bit of an afterthought without some extra support.

 LunarSol wrote:
Interestingly they do retain Battleline so far, but Armigers are definitely a little bit of an afterthought without some extra support.

I think the difference is that Imperial Knights have a bit more interdependency between Armiger-class models and Questoris-class models.

 LunarSol wrote:
Interestingly they do retain Battleline so far, but Armigers are definitely a little bit of an afterthought without some extra support.

They almost have to, tbh. With only 2 variants rather than 5, even a full 12 comes out to about 1500-1600pts. Not that I'm opposed to having more big knights on the field, but it's definitely a lot more limiting for loyalists.

Laughing Man wrote:
even a full 12 comes out to about 1500-1600pts.

Full 12 is 1620 - add Canis Rex (380) and you've got a legal 2k list.

beast_gts wrote:

Laughing Man wrote:
even a full 12 comes out to about 1500-1600pts.

Full 12 is 1620 - add Canis Rex (380) and you've got a legal 2k list.

I sense this army being played at a Tournament very soon.

Ugh. It does make me wonder about the Forgepact list. I bet I can toss in a veritable horde of Skitari.

(I did wonder how GW was going to get Knight players to buy the new Defender when it came out. Little did I know my army would drop by 400 points, more if you count the Knight Valiant I'm not going to buy anymore.)

Laughing Man wrote:
The only character War Dogs are in a single detachment now, so there's a possibility you'll get a similar detachment in the new codex. Mind, with only two Armiger options I'm not sure why you'd want a detachment just for them.

For smaller games, even with their limited options, an all-Armiger force is a far better experience for all concerned.

I really wish knight armies would have some infantry, household guard, men-at-arms.

 Crimson wrote:
I really wish knight armies would have some infantry, household guard, men-at-arms.

Absolutely the best thing they could do for both factions.

 Crimson wrote:
I really wish knight armies would have some infantry, household guard, men-at-arms.

Isn't there a detachment where the Mechanicus can be used as infantry?

 Quixote wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
I really wish knight armies would have some infantry, household guard, men-at-arms.

Isn't there a detachment where the Mechanicus can be used as infantry?

Imperials got a Grotmas detachment that allows them to take Skitarii, and Chaos got one to take Chaos Cultists.

And both are really garbo. If IK want infantry, we can bring some Imperial Agents along (commonly Sisters, but sometimes Inquisitional Henchmen).

 ZergSmasher wrote:
And both are really garbo. If IK want infantry, we can bring some Imperial Agents along (commonly Sisters, but sometimes Inquisitional Henchmen).

So you think the ability to bring assorted cheap action-monkey units that can also be sacrificed to enhance the (Chaos) Knights is garbage?

Me? I've used the Iconoclast Fiefdom in a Crusade, in an Escalation League, & for numerous casual games (both 1v1 & team games) these past 6 months. To great effect & much fun.
Did I win every game? No (just plenty of them ). But all save a few were fun for all playing.

ccs wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
And both are really garbo. If IK want infantry, we can bring some Imperial Agents along (commonly Sisters, but sometimes Inquisitional Henchmen).

So you think the ability to bring assorted cheap action-monkey units that can also be sacrificed to enhance the (Chaos) Knights is garbage?

Me? I've used the Iconoclast Fiefdom in a Crusade, in an Escalation League, & for numerous casual games (both 1v1 & team games) these past 6 months. To great effect & much fun.
Did I win every game? No (just plenty of them ). But all save a few were fun for all playing.

The only sacrificing Questor Forgepact does is when my opponent fires a sea of Str 3 lasgun fire into my 2 Ranger squads.

But my Magos do like hanging out and repairing things. I have a feeling they are going to work quite well with the Defender.

ccs wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
And both are really garbo. If IK want infantry, we can bring some Imperial Agents along (commonly Sisters, but sometimes Inquisitional Henchmen).

So you think the ability to bring assorted cheap action-monkey units that can also be sacrificed to enhance the (Chaos) Knights is garbage?

Me? I've used the Iconoclast Fiefdom in a Crusade, in an Escalation League, & for numerous casual games (both 1v1 & team games) these past 6 months. To great effect & much fun.
Did I win every game? No (just plenty of them ). But all save a few were fun for all playing.

I was speaking of competitive play. For fun games, go nuts of course. Any detachment can be fun and provide an interesting and engaging game if both players have the same mindset about their lists. But I tend to follow the competitive scene, and I've never seen any Imperial Knights list that ran their Grotmas detachment actually do well at a tournament. I suppose I haven't really watched the Chaos Knights lists as closely but from what I've heard it's basically been All War Dogs, All The Time until now since their book has massively buffed the big guys.

 Hellebore wrote:

Grzzldgamer wrote:
Shells still ejecting from wrong side….

Historically the bolter has had ambi ejectors, so they can wield from either side so not sure that's an issue.

Isn't it a right-handed bolter (ejection port to the right), but is being held left-handed? So, Bowl-cut is doing it wrong, and it's his own fault.
[The pic on the previous page is mirrored.]

 ZergSmasher wrote:
And both are really garbo. If IK want infantry, we can bring some Imperial Agents along (commonly Sisters, but sometimes Inquisitional Henchmen).

Knights should go in Imperial Agents full time and there needs to be an Agents of Chaos book with Cultists, Daemons, and their own Knights.

 Skinnereal wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

Grzzldgamer wrote:
Shells still ejecting from wrong side….

Historically the bolter has had ambi ejectors, so they can wield from either side so not sure that's an issue.

Isn't it a right-handed bolter (ejection port to the right), but is being held left-handed? So, Bowl-cut is doing it wrong, and it's his own fault.
[The pic on the previous page is mirrored.]

Again, Astartes Bolters have ejection ports on both sides because Marines are ambidextrous through mind conditioning, there's no such thing as a "right-handed bolter".

Also, Bolt Rounds are meant to be caseless ammunition.

 LunarSol wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
And both are really garbo. If IK want infantry, we can bring some Imperial Agents along (commonly Sisters, but sometimes Inquisitional Henchmen).

Knights should go in Imperial Agents full time and there needs to be an Agents of Chaos book with Cultists, Daemons, and their own Knights.

To go a few easy steps further... Agents of <Faction> should exist for every faction as a free index, because:
1. Individual units like Knights shouldn't be locked behind a full price codex paywall
2. A separate index for allies allows for balancing points separately for allied units (i.e. separate costs for Canis Rex as an ally)
3. A separate index for allies allows for a bespoke ally version of a datasheet (i.e. IK bondsman abilities do nothing on allied Knights)
4. GW's lovely no models no rules policy would be more palatable if they actually did yes models yes rules and gave proper matched play rules out for things they make (Necromunda Squats as playable units for Votann, HH vehicles for anything in power armour etc), all balanced by being a non-spammable agents option (only X% of your army or only X number of models etc)

 Insularum wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ZergSmasher wrote:
And both are really garbo. If IK want infantry, we can bring some Imperial Agents along (commonly Sisters, but sometimes Inquisitional Henchmen).

Knights should go in Imperial Agents full time and there needs to be an Agents of Chaos book with Cultists, Daemons, and their own Knights.

To go a few easy steps further... Agents of <Faction> should exist for every faction as a free index, because:
1. Individual units like Knights shouldn't be locked behind a full price codex paywall
2. A separate index for allies allows for balancing points separately for allied units (i.e. separate costs for Canis Rex as an ally)
3. A separate index for allies allows for a bespoke ally version of a datasheet (i.e. IK bondsman abilities do nothing on allied Knights)
4. GW's lovely no models no rules policy would be more palatable if they actually did yes models yes rules and gave proper matched play rules out for things they make (Necromunda Squats as playable units for Votann, HH vehicles for anything in power armour etc), all balanced by being a non-spammable agents option (only X% of your army or only X number of models etc)

And all I took away was "this is a good idea, people will really want that, they'd make a bit of money charging for it"