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.

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

Thanks for reposting my picture next to 'Tiny' - some more pictures follow below

Think the Crusader would fit on the Knight base? Looks like it should be ok-ish.

Yes, but... the Dreamforge base is a solid mass - very sturdy, plenty of weight etc. The knight base isn't very strong at all, and has a lot of give, so whilst the Crusader isn't exactly heavy it would sag under the weight without reinforcement. Having said that, theres not a lot of spare on the base to really pose him so.. hmm.







The knight feels, in all honesty, like a wasted opportunity. If the knight had posable legs (which would have taken one more sprue at most), then maybe I'd say its a good kit. As it is, its three sprues for quite a lot of money and to convert the legs is going to take a hell of a lot of effort. Its not a quick job by any means.

The Leviathan on the other hand... well... I can do this without blue tac, and have it perfectly balanced. It also works with the arms and armor plates on.

 BrookM wrote:
I wish GW didn't feth over my FLGS and had them available today as promised, instead of just for their stores, the curs.

Even the local GW store didn't get all they pre-ordered in on schedule.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

This is why i want to see a pic. My nemesis i just built, which is a bit taller then standard dreadknight is about 4.75 inces tall from its toes to the top of its defiler head. You can't trust a measurement done like this and the pose and shape of the model is also very important for looking at perceived space. Two degrees of seperation is one degree to far when comparing the size of A to B.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This is being misread.

The unit is called an "Imperial Knight" in the codex.

It is also called "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box because the name "Imperial Knight" is too generic for enforceable IP copyright.

If "Imperial Knight" is the correct name, then everyone can use the correct name. Being the only company to use the wrong name is an incredibly stupid idea.

Have you check the legal IP status on the wording of Tyranid in their trademark claims, it's included twice as Tyrannid also; GW sometimes likes to make sure. GW has a doctrine of rigorously attempting to defend its IP, however Imperial Knight has so many connotations I think the double name gives GW something to claim as theirs. Otherwise who are/were the Imperial Knights? Samurai, the Royal Victorian Order, any ritter of the Holy Roman Empire?

Imperial Knight Titan or Knight Titan can be more easily defended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The unit is called an "Imperial Knight" in the codex.
It is also called "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box because the name "Imperial Knight" is too generic for enforceable IP copyright.

Does that mean, anyone can now produce an "Imperial Knight", as long as they don't print "Imperial Knight Titan" on the back of the box?

Yes anyone can produce an Imperial Knight so long as they can justify the name and GW can do nothing about it. So if its a 'knight', either on horseback or otherwise and its part of an empire then the name can be used. You could also have a vehicle called a 'knight', from an Imperial faction, again.
If the name is generic Gw can do nothing about it.

So for example you can invent your own fantasy game, you cant call it Warhammer, but you can add warhammers to it, or take a vehicle and call that a Warhammer and so on.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Does that also mean, that for the first time, the background was (re)written by the GW legal team, that proved so successfull in the Chapterhouse lawsuit?

Chapterhouse has little or nothing to do with it. GW has long realised, for at least 15 years that a lot of its IP was indefensible. If you have an old old copy of the Sisters of Battle Codex you will see examples of this. Games Workshop in their wisdom attempted to trade names like Missionary and Preacher. I think the church got there first. Sisters Repentia they can claim as their own, and Pentitent Engines are ok.

You might have noticed GW is also heading away from generic unit names for a long time now. Sometimes that was to ensure that popular units are not named the same, so various Dreadnaughts don't co-exist as items because the Eldar Dreadnaught was renamed Wraithlord and the ork dreadnaught was renamed the Deff Dread. Other things were renamed more recently to create IP opportunities, this is especially true for Warhammer fantasy which is far harder to defend as elves and orcs in a fantasy setting dont belong to anyone. Dark Elf spearmen are too generic, anyone can make them and sell them Dreadspears are propriatory.

GW are ignorant of many things, but they know IP law.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 silent25 wrote:

 bubber wrote:
I am assuming that a knight army can take allies like imperial guard. If so, how about these instead of Cadians:

They're cheaper too!

Dave Taylor did a great IG army back in the day using the Bretonnian Men-at-Arms kits. Will need access to IG arms, but straight forward for basic conversions.

This is what I have been thinking of doing, except that I would be deploying as many sentinels as possible and all the troops would have livery more in keeping with Bretonnians, quartered tunics etc. While 'allies' I would use therm specifically and exclusively with the knights are a peasant militia raised from the knights world.

Even considered giving the sergeants halberds with integral laspistols, it's just a ccw and laspistol right?

Nicer to see the Bret kits are viable, those look excellent as mainstram guard.

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

The Knight is not 6 3/4" tall...

REQUEST.

Can one or more of the Dakka Knight owners take a closer look at the practicality of magnetising the weapons please.

 Orlanth wrote:
REQUEST.

Can one or more of the Dakka Knight owners take a closer look at the practicality of magnetising the weapons please.

It's going to be...interesting.

So the parts layout is like this:
The "arm" for the weapons are a single part(built of components 97, 95, 20, 21[the arm 'assembly'] and then parts 22+23 are the "box" that you see the weapons proper attached to) that are shared between each build. The weapons are then built around the "box" for the arms, with the rest of it being detailing.

If you want to skimp a bit and not detail the Thermal Cannon I guess you might be able to get away with it. I'm taking it very very slowly with mine right now and planning out subassemblies, etc before starting building anything.

 Alpharius wrote:

 krazynadechukr wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
i really want to see a side by side of the imperial knight and the 15mm leviathan models.

there is a pic of nemesis & knight a few pages back, nemesis is 5".... IK is 6 3/4"..... That'll be good idea of how small a 15mm DF will look....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Justyn wrote:
This better?

there is a pic of knight with tape measure. 4.5" puts 15mm df at knights chin....too small IMHO

The Knight is not 6 3/4" tall...

6.5" at top of model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
REQUEST.

Can one or more of the Dakka Knight owners take a closer look at the practicality of magnetising the weapons please.

I'm Magnetizing behind the shields....

Lol, I am not going to build mine for awhile. It is my reward for getting my adepticon army ready(o god that is one month away)

So its going to be super hectic enough as it is. I cant wait to see when chaos rules come out. I want to make a death guard one.

Also waiting for a variety of tutorials that are going to be coming out soon ish for magnetizing and the like. So excited.

Got to check out the Imp Knight today. The local GW store sold out of their last one just as I walked in to the store and the shop down the road selling it for $140AUD (vs $155) had 1 left in stock. I won't be buying one until I finish the models I have on hand though.

It does look a lot better in person I think.

I want to do lights in mine like seen in the new wd!

I just can't get over a codex being released with two units that are virtually identical.

Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Shame really. Won't be spending money on such limited rules content, especially considering part of that rules content is a random table that can make your Knight randomly better or worse. Yay game design!

Looks good to magnetize.

Behind the shields is one thing but also the ammo mounts on the side would benefit from snipping the hoses off and be able to swap from fuel drums to ammo hopper.

They were a little evil in making only enough lifting lugs on the front of the shields for one set. I am going to use some formed card with a drilled hole in each which should work.

Looks like a similar amount of tinkering as with the Grey Knight big robot.

I like how it goes together for painting: Just leave off all the armor plates and paint the big skeleton in one big go.

I think also a couple big magnets in the torso-twist area would be good for transporting or at least for posing. The glued on sprue idea in WD is fine if you do not want to detach the upper body.

I hate to say but I think I LIKE this model.
This is far superior in look than the Khorn mower.
Detail-wise it is less but it just looks better engineered.
Plus I loved epic and it looks right alongside the Shadowsword or Baneblade.

Will definitely not spend the $25 on the separate transfer sheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
I just can't get over a codex being released with two units that are virtually identical.
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.
Shame really. Won't be spending money on such limited rules content, especially considering part of that rules content is a random table that can make your Knight randomly better or worse. Yay game design!

Yes, $50 and 60 pages for what is really 2 models.
This is really strange even for GW.
I really do not want the codex for a couple lines of information.
I do not need the fluff spelled out to me, I suspect my imagination is better.

So.. for those dakkites more knowledgeable about the recent expansions... would the following be legal in some combo in a 2000pt everything 40k (but not labelled apoc) goes tourney or FLGS setting?

Primary Detachment: 3-6 scoring knights
Allies: 2 units of Castellax Automata and a Tech Priest HQ
Lord of War: Ferrus Manus

The units can be flip flopped obviously (like the Ad Mech becomming the primary and 3 knights as allies or somesuch) if that helps.

 Talizvar wrote:
They were a little evil in making only enough lifting lugs on the front of the shields for one set. I am going to use some formed card with a drilled hole in each which should work.

That's your takeaway?

And there is enough lugs. Each shield uses 2 lugs, and the sprue has 4.

well here is one way to make it larger this is the Australia QLD townsville GW

lol wow that's awesome

Now we just need the one with the whole Westminster Abbey on top.

Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

 Blacksails wrote:
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Fantastic concept/terrible execution is kind GW's modus operandi.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

Yes, the mounting point is identical, however the actual bit that holds the shield is very different from the stubber, you could convert it without that much trouble to hold another gun but it would look different from the other side.

Had a flick through the companion. It's a lot of background and pictures of the different colour schemes for all the different houses and freeblades.

It kind of amazes me they've only done 1 model. I didn't see anything else in the companion, so I assume there will be nothing else.

But they put a lot of effort in to just 1 model kit which just amounts to a weapon swap (which is actually less than most GW dual kits, many of which let you create more unique critters than a mere weapon swap).

Flicking through the companion I just couldn't help but think "these are nice pictures, lots of background, but it would be so much better if there were a few knight variants in the pictures instead of just the same one over and over".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

 Blacksails wrote:
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Fantastic concept/terrible execution is kind GW's modus operandi.

The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

So instead of releasing a whole codex for one model... just add them into Codex: Imperial Guard as part of the Guard army, or as allies to anyone Guard can ally with? And then release a dataslate with the list as it currently stands in the Codex for taking an army just of Knights...

And then, when they have the budget to add a new sprue with the other weapons and a couple new heads, they release a codex for the Knight army...

Would have achieved exactly the same as they have now (because I can't see sales of the Knight codex in its current form being huge), and would have kept everyone much happier about the whole situation.

 insaniak wrote:

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

So instead of releasing a whole codex for one model... just add them into Codex: Imperial Guard as part of the Guard army, or as allies to anyone Guard can ally with? And then release a dataslate with the list as it currently stands in the Codex for taking an army just of Knights...

We don't know that they aren't in the IG book, do we? I mean, it's kind of unlikely, but it's not impossible

 notprop wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Random question for anyone who has one:

Assuming you had the spare bits, could the area where the shield normally goes house another stubber? Is that slot modular (ie. you could put the stubber on either side)?

 Blacksails wrote:
Completely missed the mark and a wasted opportunity to do a proper Knight codex with multiple Knight variants.

Fantastic concept/terrible execution is kind GW's modus operandi.

The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

Which is why GW really need to do away with the codex system altogether and move into the 21st century. Living rulebooks is where it's at these days, no waiting years for an update, no restricting yourself because X army is getting updated but there is no model for Y unit yet, and not even half the mess of the whole rulebook+codex+allied dex+suppliment+dataslate crap.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
Does that also mean, that for the first time, the background was (re)written by the GW legal team, that proved so successfull in the Chapterhouse lawsuit?

Chapterhouse has little or nothing to do with it. GW has long realised, for at least 15 years that a lot of its IP was indefensible.
(...)
GW are ignorant of many things, but they know IP law.

Are we talking about the same GW, that until today believes they invented halberds and grenade launchers, that rejected to produce the necessary documents for an IP lawsuit until the end, that only during the CHS lawsuit noticed they had no documents on most IP claims and asked the artists to forfeit all their rights to GW (claiming to have lost those documents years ago), that during the lawsuit tried to copyright the shoulder pad form, was rejected but forgot to tell the judge? That dragged someone to court for over a year, who obviously had nothing to do with the case? That decided to delete its facebook page because their attack on "Spots the Space Marine" backfired?

Using different names on the front and back of the box won't help them with their IP problems either.

Larry Vela on BOLS wrote:Sources say Forgeword is already well into development of a variety of Imperial Knight add-ons and variant kits. Look for them to begin with easy to produce weapon add-on kits including:
-Knight Inferno Cannon
-Knight Plasma Cannon
-Knight Power Fist
Then they will move into more elaborate add-on kits including:-Chaos Knight
Lancers, Castellans, and Barons would seem like low-hanging fruit in the add-on kit department for Forgeworld but there is no chatter so far.

So enjoy Codex Imperial Knight with Inferno Cannon, Codex Imperial Knight with Plasma Cannon and Codex Imperial Knight with Power Fist in the near future

I hope GW lets me pay extra for each of those additional books!

 insaniak wrote:

 notprop wrote:
The thing is GW aren't going to leave open options in codex entries for other to fill and they couldn't fit any more in he kit without a further sprue.

So instead of releasing a whole codex for one model... just add them into Codex: Imperial Guard as part of the Guard army, or as allies to anyone Guard can ally with? And then release a dataslate with the list as it currently stands in the Codex for taking an army just of Knights...

And then, when they have the budget to add a new sprue with the other weapons and a couple new heads, they release a codex for the Knight army...

Would have achieved exactly the same as they have now (because I can't see sales of the Knight codex in its current form being huge), and would have kept everyone much happier about the whole situation.

The difference is as a codex it can be printed as a hardbound book. Dataslates are digital only products. They clearly thought of this product as being big and important and with that is the desire to not only print the rules, but print a collectors edition.

I hope they let my pay $65 for each or $220 for all three.