Imperial Knights - Codex Preview Video 03/03 - Gasp! Probably worth watching!

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.

**wuestenfux**

Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?

**pretre**

Anyone see the speculation that they can be taken as allies or as a separate detachment (a la dataslate)?

**Slayer le boucher**

Speece Marheens Needing a boost...haha...haha...oh sorry, din't see you where serious for a moment...

**NoseGoblin**

wuestenfux wrote:
Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not play 40K... Are you being sarcastic? My understanding is that SM's are pretty much the army of choice due to their uberness.

**pretre**

Yeah, this part:

"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.

**His Master's Voice**

NoseGoblin wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not play 40K... Are you being sarcastic? My understanding is that SM's are pretty much the army of choice due to their uberness.

Vanilla Marines have not been uber for ages. Some variants, like the GK or SW, were successful, but the sad truth is, your average Tac Marine is a pretty bad unit.

**Alpharius**

His Master's Voice wrote:
NoseGoblin wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Well, restricting the Knights to Imperium-only (bar GK) makes sense. This will eventually Space Marines a boost that they desperately need. I guess this will bring them on par with the tier 1 armies out there, will they?

Please don't take this the wrong way, I do not play 40K... Are you being sarcastic? My understanding is that SM's are pretty much the army of choice due to their uberness.

Vanilla Marines have not been uber for ages. Some variants, like the GK or SW, were successful, but the sad truth is, your average Tac Marine is a pretty bad unit.

Yeah, pretty much!

I mean, I thought it was pretty obvious/well known that Space Marines may sell real well, but they certainly are NOT at the top of the list in terms of "Power Rankings"!

**Yodhrin**

His Master's Voice wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
(...) if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them"(...), then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy

You're comparing a house rule accepted by all involved with someone showing up to play with a model they have but can't field. I have a bunch of models too, but when I show up to a friendly game I think it's on me to justify fielding a Leman Russ in my Dwarf army, not on the guy on the other side of the table, regardless of whether we agreed on previous house rules or not.

In other words, rules are rules and no Knight for you unless you can convince me you should get one.

No, I am comparing the attitude of the person who would, when asked, make an agreement to bend and break the rules in the first case, and refuse to make that agreement in the latter case. "Can we just pick Warlord Traits? I think rolling for them is daft." "Yes, no problem." - "Do you mind if I ally this Knight I spent hours carefully converting to fit the theme to my Orks/Chaos Marines/Tyranids but treat it as Battle Brothers?" "NEVAR! RULES ARE RULES!". If you honestly can't see the disconnect in reasoning there....well, you're sitting there making posts where you compare modifying the Allies chart a bit to taking a 40K tank in a Fantasy army, so you're evidently not interested in actually discussing this.

**H.B.M.C.**

Zweischneid wrote:
Always building strawmen, are we

Nah Zwei. That's your job.

**Azreal13**

Yodhrin wrote:
His Master's Voice wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
(...) if someone's going to sit there and say "in my group we select Warlord Traits rather than roll for them"(...), then turn around and say "we're mates, but the rules are the rules, no Knight for you", that is naked hypocrisy

You're comparing a house rule accepted by all involved with someone showing up to play with a model they have but can't field. I have a bunch of models too, but when I show up to a friendly game I think it's on me to justify fielding a Leman Russ in my Dwarf army, not on the guy on the other side of the table, regardless of whether we agreed on previous house rules or not.

In other words, rules are rules and no Knight for you unless you can convince me you should get one.

No, I am comparing the attitude of the person who would, when asked, make an agreement to bend and break the rules in the first case, and refuse to make that agreement in the latter case. "Can we just pick Warlord Traits? I think rolling for them is daft." "Yes, no problem." - "Do you mind if I ally this Knight I spent hours carefully converting to fit the theme to my Orks/Chaos Marines/Tyranids but treat it as Battle Brothers?" "NEVAR! RULES ARE RULES!". If you honestly can't see the disconnect in reasoning there....well, you're sitting there making posts where you compare modifying the Allies chart a bit to taking a 40K tank in a Fantasy army, so you're evidently not interested in actually discussing this.

There no disconnect, there's just points on a curve, and different people have different thresholds at where in the curve they draw the line.

**Therion**

pretre wrote:
Yeah, this part:

"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.

How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere. It's in line with the two week old rumour that you can make Knights a stand-alone army, but imperial armies can also take a detachment of 3 as allies.

**pretre**

Therion wrote:
pretre wrote:
Yeah, this part:

"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.

How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.

Separate detachment from allies and lord of war means, from what it says there, you don't worry about the allies matrix to assign the detachment. Like the Tau dataslate or the Storm Talon one.

**kronk**

Therion wrote:
pretre wrote:
Yeah, this part:

"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.

How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.

Not according to another rumor that states:

3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids

**pretre**

kronk wrote:
Therion wrote:
pretre wrote:
Yeah, this part:

"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.

How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.

Not according to another rumor that states:

3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids

That's the same rumor. So Gabe is saying, you can take them as a detachment or as allies. At least that's how I read it.

via Father Gabe on Faeit 212
I have had a chance to skim through my advanced copy of Codex: Imperial Knight. Here are the highlights:
1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong...

2) Datasheets. There is a section in the codex, after organization chart, that covers Datasheets. None are mentioned but looks like these will be popping up in books...sorry everyone that don't consider them official, etc...

3) Ally Matrix:
Battle Brothers: Everyone Else
Allies of Convenience: Eldar,Grey Knights
Desperate Allies: Tau, Dark Eldar
Apocalypse: Orks, Necrons, Chaos Demons, Chaos Space Marines, Tyranids

4) Primary Detachment: 3 - 6 Imperial Knights. 1 is the designated Warlord (roll on Imperial Knight Warlord Trait table...yep Warlord Traits).
Additionally: Your remaining Imperial Knights in the Primary formation can roll on the Knight Apparent/Knight Seneschal chart. 1 - Knight is -1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 5+ now. 2-5 Your an Imperial Knight. 6 - Knight is +1 WS/BS, Ion Shield is 3+ now.

5) Concerning Warlord Traits: They range up and down from being useful to 'meh'. Examples: +1" to Run/Charge range. +1 to Building Damage Chart. My favorite: Warlord gains It Will Not Die!

6) Let me stop all the questions now ladies and gentleman. Cannot show pictures. There are no other unit entries for Adeptus Mechanicum or Freeblades. They are not even listed on the ally chart.

7) The Companion Guide is amazingly beautiful for coffee table style books. Its a big book, lots of pretty pictures, etc. It does not contain rules but for collectors its a nice buy. Average guy might not buy it but dedicated collectors will want to order it. I recommend ordering it in a Games Workshop, ship to the store for safety and protection of the book.

**Therion**

pretre wrote:
Therion wrote:
pretre wrote:
Yeah, this part:

"1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

So that means Chaos, Tyranids, etc can get them as a detachment but not allies or LOW.

How does that mean Chaos and Tyranids get Imperial Knights? Nowhere in that phrase does it say that everyone has access to this special detachment of Knights. Whether the detachment counts as allies or lords of war is irrelevant. All the phrase says is that armies other than the one built from Codex: Imperial Knights can get three as a special type of detachment. I'm sure it's not the whole story and there's a definitive list of armies with access somewhere.

Separate detachment from allies and lord of war means, from what it says there, you don't worry about the allies matrix to assign the detachment. Like the Tau dataslate or the Storm Talon one.

That's not correct at all. Why are you assuming Tau dataslate? Be'lakor dataslate specifies which armies have access to it. You're just jumping to conclusions. The allied Knights may very well be 'dataslate' allies that don't take any force organisation slots, but they also may still be restricted to Imperial armies.

**Kroothawk**

Imperial Knights are Imperial? Who would have thought!

**pretre**

Therion wrote:
That's not correct at all. Why are you assuming Tau dataslate? Be'lakor dataslate specifies which armies have access to it. You're just jumping to conclusions. The allied Knights may very well be 'dataslate' allies that don't take any force organisation slots, but they also may still be restricted to Imperial armies.

I'm just reading what Father Gabe wrote. He says "1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

Separate detachment from allies. Meaning not using the allies system. Really, we have to wait for the book, but I'm just parsing his rumor.

**Therion**

pretre wrote:
Therion wrote:
That's not correct at all. Why are you assuming Tau dataslate? Be'lakor dataslate specifies which armies have access to it. You're just jumping to conclusions. The allied Knights may very well be 'dataslate' allies that don't take any force organisation slots, but they also may still be restricted to Imperial armies.

I'm just reading what Father Gabe wrote. He says "1) For non-Imperial Knight armies...you can get up to 3 as a separate detachment. This is a separate detachment from allies and lord of war...which is the new template I am guessing we will see in future codexes...sorry everyone Escalation is standard. Unless of course I looked at that box wrong... "

Separate detachment from allies. Meaning not using the allies system. Really, we have to wait for the book, but I'm just parsing his rumor.

Double post? You said that already. We agree it's very confusing Knights could be taken as a dataslate or as allies. However thinking that Tyranids have access to the dataslate is just jumping to conclusions with no evidence that would point to that direction.

If you're interested in pursuing this fantasy, try to explain to us what the meaningful difference would be between a 'special detachment of 3 Knights' as dataslate allies, or as simply taking an allied detachment of 3 Knights? The former would follow no allies rules, so they wouldn't be battle brothers, desperate allies, allies of convenience or enemies? What would they be? Would you be able to cast spells on your special buddy Knights? There's no reasonable train of thought that can allow you to have allies in your army that don't follow any rules for allies. The only logical explanation is that the detachment of 3 Knights don't take any force organisation slots, nor do they count as an additional primary detachment. They'll still follow the other rules for allies and the restrictions therein.

**Sidstyler**

His Master's Voice wrote:
...but the sad truth is, your average Tac Marine is a pretty bad unit.

So are fire warriors, but I'd be facing a lynch mob if I tried to argue that Tau were bad because of that one unit.

In any case, the new SM codex isn't amazing, but I bet you a dollar it'll hold up far better for far longer than either the Tau or Eldar codexes that everyone is bitching about right now. All it'll take is a BRB change to favor assault more than shooting and you'll likely never see a Tau army on the table again (can't speak for Eldar but shooting seems to be much their thing as well)...and wouldn't you know it, there's a rumored 7th edition coming out this year which could very well do just that.

**Therion**

Sidstyler wrote:
His Master's Voice wrote:
...but the sad truth is, your average Tac Marine is a pretty bad unit.

So are fire warriors, but I'd be facing a lynch mob if I tried to argue that Tau were bad because of that one unit.

In any case, the new SM codex isn't amazing, but I bet you a dollar it'll hold up far better for far longer than either the Tau or Eldar codexes that everyone is bitching about right now. All it'll take is a BRB change to favor assault more than shooting and you'll likely never see a Tau army on the table again (can't speak for Eldar but shooting seems to be much their thing as well)...and wouldn't you know it, there's a rumored 7th edition coming out this year which could very well do just that.

Somehow I get the feeling that 7th edition will just do away with elite infantry in general. If you're infantry or a standard vehicle the more you cost the worse you'll be. Why? Because the edition will be ruled by Titans. When the templates drop on you the toughness, wounds, armour saves, invulnerable saves and cover saves all count for nothing. Knights have their spot in the sun for a few months from here to summer. Then their big brothers come out and Knights will be parked in the garage again.

It's a real cold war arms race going on out there in the 40K universe. Tons of people are stocking up on Knights and all the others are stocking up on things that can kill them, but soon enough Knights will be small potatoes and it's time to invest on a Warhound, a Reaver, or two. Afterall, at 2000 points you can already get two Warhounds since you get double FOC. What happens next? One party in the arms race goes broke?

**ncshooter426**

Alpharius wrote:
You know the thread is almost dead when the Fart Jokes get trotted out.

/thread

**Lockark**

Sidstyler wrote:
If Chaos really can't take a knight ally then that strikes me as a really odd business decision. You know it wasn't done for the sake of balance, because as countless white wardens (lol :p) and even GW themselves have said they don't give one feth about game balance. It doesn't really make sense fluff-wise because Chaos knights do actually exist. And it makes no sense from a business perspective because GW has practically been screaming "BUY THE KNIGHT (or 6)!" at us all week long, and thus you'd think they would create any excuse imaginable for an army to be able to field one (and thus give players a reason to buy one), even re-writing existing fluff if need be, like with the Tau riptide which shouldn't really exist, that by pure coincidence can ally with damn near anyone.

My brother in particular won't be happy about this. He bought the White Dwarf with the rules specifically because he eventually planned on converting one into a Chaos knight and now GW's gaking on him again, first with "Codex: Heldrakes and Cultists" and now this. $4 DOWN THE DRAIN!

Not that I was necessarily looking forward to the idea of fighting one of these stupid fething things to begin with.

The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.

**Therion**

Lockark wrote:
Sidstyler wrote:
If Chaos really can't take a knight ally then that strikes me as a really odd business decision. You know it wasn't done for the sake of balance, because as countless white wardens (lol :p) and even GW themselves have said they don't give one feth about game balance. It doesn't really make sense fluff-wise because Chaos knights do actually exist. And it makes no sense from a business perspective because GW has practically been screaming "BUY THE KNIGHT (or 6)!" at us all week long, and thus you'd think they would create any excuse imaginable for an army to be able to field one (and thus give players a reason to buy one), even re-writing existing fluff if need be, like with the Tau riptide which shouldn't really exist, that by pure coincidence can ally with damn near anyone.

My brother in particular won't be happy about this. He bought the White Dwarf with the rules specifically because he eventually planned on converting one into a Chaos knight and now GW's gaking on him again, first with "Codex: Heldrakes and Cultists" and now this. $4 DOWN THE DRAIN!

Not that I was necessarily looking forward to the idea of fighting one of these stupid fething things to begin with.

The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.

Since Eldar and Tau can ally with them (which I find utterly idiotic) one could hope actual Chaos Knights are on the way. It only requires one spiky bitz sprue and a dataslate in a weekly WD. However, there's also the possibility GW thinks Chaos already have their Knights in the form of the weird Khorne thing on wheels and the fugly Fiends.

**NoggintheNog**

Lockark wrote:

The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.

Well, I'm neither a mind reader nor a rumor monger, but to me , the fact it cannot ally with Chaos tells me one thing, and one thing only.

Chaos knights are coming.

**His Master's Voice**

Sidstyler wrote:
His Master's Voice wrote:
...but the sad truth is, your average Tac Marine is a pretty bad unit.

So are fire warriors, but I'd be facing a lynch mob if I tried to argue that Tau were bad because of that one unit.

I'd argue that Fire Warriors are better than SM simply because you have to pay less to get your scoring chaff out of the way and taking them enables much better units in your FOC compared to what Tacs give you. SM have historically very flat power curve that goes from meh to fair.

The problem with Tacs is that they're priced accurately for early 3rd edition. These days they almost never take saves, small arms fire is meh in general, high overall stats mean little with no focus on specific roles, etc. So I guess it's not that Tacs are bad, it's just that the game haven't been about infantry combat for a long time now and paying premium for grunts just doesn't cut it.

**Lockark**

NoggintheNog wrote:
Lockark wrote:

The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.

Well, I'm neither a mind reader nor a rumor monger, but to me , the fact it cannot ally with Chaos tells me one thing, and one thing only.

Chaos knights are coming.

I wouldn't be surprised if a chaos one has a rage table were you shoot your own guys, less bs and ws then the imperials, and some other thing taced on for "fluff" that makes it worse then the normal one and then expect you to pay the same amount of points.

Then i can get called a waac gamer for not likeing it.

**MajorStoffer**

NoggintheNog wrote:
Lockark wrote:

The idea of converting a chaos knight got me more excited for my csm more then "codex: helldrake and cultists" ever did once i got the rules in my hands. Huge disapointment, happy i never pre-ordered.

Well, I'm neither a mind reader nor a rumor monger, but to me , the fact it cannot ally with Chaos tells me one thing, and one thing only.

Chaos knights are coming.

Or they intend for you to use the Khornedozer.

**timd**

NoggintheNog wrote:

Well, I'm neither a mind reader nor a rumor monger, but to me , the fact it cannot ally with Chaos tells me one thing, and one thing only.

Chaos knights are coming.

Chaos knights Is Begin To Grow...

T

**Lobokai**

Slayer le boucher wrote:

This think looks punnier by the second, in the next pics they will be the size of a Dread...

Wow, the 15mm Leviathan Crusader is looking really really close all of the sudden. Mark must either be rounding down or the GW crew is rounding up. With a little rubble on the base, the Crusader is there!

**H.B.M.C.**

Ok, now I get the base-size difference. That's a big base.

I suspect we've entered phase 2 of the base-size arms race. Almost everyone has their big oval base miniature, so now everyone gets their even bigger oval base miniature over the next couple of years.

I'm calling "Plastic Squiggoth" right now.