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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That picture is hilariously useless. Please tell me that was your intent, as that's a funny pic.

LOL, well kinda. The ratio between Knight height and Lev height is much the same as the difference between the tall dude's height and the other guys

But the Knight is scaled to 6.5" and the Lev scaled to 4.5", so I'm guessing that's approximately how it will look when you place the two next to each other.

That was my thought too, HBMC . I'm sure one will turn up soon, though.

I'm surprised that with all the people out there who have both kits, no one has yet posted a picture of them together in a single shot. I can find lots of pictures with the Leviathan next to nearly everything else but not a Knight.

Maybe not as many people bought the 15mm one as they did the 28mm one. I have a couple of 15mm ones, but they're not built sadly.

I am waiting on a bunch of 15mm ones, but they're the Mortis version in wave 3. Not using mine as knights anyway, as for that I'll probably use the actual knight (can't imagine ever fielding more than one knight, personally).

Give it time, somebody will put one up eventually...

And this:

You can't be corrupted by Chaos, agnosto. It's breaking the rules.




I got three 15mm (2 Crusaders, 1 Mortis) specifically to use them as Knights (long before the idea of GW doing one ever came up). It's a squadron of 3, and I got enough of the weapon options to do most of the various Knight types (Errant, Paladin, Crusader, etc.).

 krazynadechukr wrote:

Tinqle wrote:
So is there any general consensus on whether or not the 15mm leviathan crusader would work as a good substitute for a knight because from the pics it would seem that with a bit of basing it should be a comparable size. Does anyone have a pic of the two side by side?

Regardless, why would I allow my opponent to have a 4.5" model as his knight, and use the 4.75" to 5.75" buildings and scenery as cover, while my 6" (to 7" converted) knight is exposed? It is an unfair advantage (unless they add 1.5" on base). (Not to mention it can not be used inside a gw store or tourny.)

Fair enough, I play casually with friends at a private residence so we are more relaxed with some rules and do lots of conversions. Even so I would like to get the leviathan up to a relatively equal height so a comparison picture would be nice. Picked one up for 50$ on ebay and would love to use it as a knight but wort case scenario I would use it as a contemptor dread with assault cannon.

So somehow I missed one single post in one hundred pages of posts which has the Knights allies chart, but found four pages of arguing. Can someone re-post how the knight fits in the allies chart or put it in the OP?

 Perturabo's Chosen wrote:
So somehow I missed one single post in one hundred pages of posts which has the Knights allies chart, but found four pages of arguing. Can someone re-post how the knight fits in the allies chart or put it in the OP?

You found only four pages of arguing?

Well, you're better off than me then...

Has anyone got any news / rumours / developments to do with the Imperial Knights?

Please?

So I can't see any sensible reason for Eldar and Tau being able to ally with Knights but Chaos can't other than GW plans a chaos Knight codex and model at some point. When in the current release rumours do we have a two week slot to release the model and then the codex?

Looky Likey wrote:
So I can't see any sensible reason for Eldar and Tau being able to ally with Knights but Chaos can't other than GW plans a chaos Knight codex and model at some point. When in the current release rumours do we have a two week slot to release the model and then the codex?

Likely to give people an extra week's paycheck to afford it as well as to spread out the content over two weeks of White Dwarf (or whatever the weekly thing is called).

 warboss wrote:

Looky Likey wrote:
So I can't see any sensible reason for Eldar and Tau being able to ally with Knights but Chaos can't other than GW plans a chaos Knight codex and model at some point. When in the current release rumours do we have a two week slot to release the model and then the codex?

Likely to give people an extra week's paycheck to afford it as well as to spread out the content over two weeks of White Dwarf (or whatever the weekly thing is called).

But putting it at that time makes it close to IG. Might be further down the road if at all.
Now a Chaos Knight 'dex and sprue maybe.

I'm just glad GW gave us knight models.

The problem with the ally system is that if it was done correctly it would greatly disadvantage all the races that have already been disadvantaged by GWs imperial favoritism. Thus it's inherently flawed with a very stretched suspension of disbelief imposed to make it seem like there is almost always justification except in the most extreme cases. GW has set such a low standard any time something isn't allowed it just seems weird. Maybe one day GW will have enough thought to come up with some mercenary options for all those disadvantaged races to balance out the imperium a bit better and a more representative version of this system can be implemented.

I think chaos should just go back to being allowed to take anything Imperial by paying an added premium.

 Padre wrote:
Has anyone got any news / rumours / developments to do with the Imperial Knights?
Please?

How about this:
The Hobby Store "Imaginary Wars" in USA posted this pic on facebook to prove the supply issues for Imperial Knights, showing the white stand-in boxes:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Imaginary-Wars/222813564466043

In Europe, the Imperial Knight sold out the first week, but more arrive this week.

 azreal13 wrote:
Also, playing an RPG without rules is just sitting around having a weird conversation.

It is awesome, actually !
I would love it if next campaign, only the GW had access to the character sheets, so that we do not even get to know precisely who has the biggest skill in what. It would provide much greater immersion.
For instance, having people argue about who is better at lockpicking and hence should try to open that lock would be much much more fun if we had only our characters' fluff and vague, subjective information from the GM .
(Yeah, that is totally Munchkin-unfriendly. You will not be able to "maximize" your "powerlevel" to over nine thousand if you do not know how the rules work. But it will certainly encourage creativity, immersion and story-telling. Rather than asking yourself “What would be the most efficient way to open that lock”, you'll end up asking yourself “How would our party try to open that lock”.)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yeah. RPG’s aren’t war games. They’re inherently not adversarial in that there’s no “sides” attempting to “win”. There’s the GM who facilitates the story, the events within the narrative and rolls for the NPC’s, and then there are the players, working their way through the scenario and overcoming obstacles either individually as a team.

It’s not even a valid comparison.

On top of that I’m a stickler for rules consistency and believe in the sanctity of rules. I follow the rules in a game because I believe they’re there for a reason and not following the rules is not only cheating but removes the entire point of having rules in the first place. When creating rules I try to use existing rules to cover situations before inventing my own, because keeping the rules concise is a good thing (lest you end up in the USR minefield that 6th Ed has, or, worse, the quagmire of 3rd Ed where we had rules like True Grit that were different depending on which of the four armies that had it you were using). To that end, army lists exist for a reason, and ignoring them is to invite anarchy (or, I should say, Apocalypse).

In any case, this isn’t about not allowing house rules or doing things beyond the rules. This is… for the 6th time today, about how one should not expect that everyone will just ‘go with it’ when you suggest breaking the rules and one should not look down upon/mock/denigrate/get angry with those who are following the rules, because they’re doing nothing wrong.


[EDIT]: But as usual, that grumpy auld bastard has beaten me to the punch and I cannot exalt his post enough. So I'll just quote it, because this is the simple best summary anyone could give:

The Auld Grump wrote:For games in your own house - house rules are fine - but do not expect me to accept your house rules in my house.

Nor should I expect to be able to use my (obviously superior) house rules at your house.

And both of us can expect to be told to go pound sand if we expect to use either of our sets of house rules in an organized play campaign.

Ah righto, so you've been arguing against a near-completely imaginary opposition this entire time, fair enough.

Nobody has said you should expect others to agree to your house rules, merely that it's just as irrational to expect they will be opposed to trying them, and so everyone should adhere to The Rules as narrowly as possible as a first principle, just in case somebody somewhere potentially maybe within some vague realm of possibility might be made slightly uncomfortable because they have to say "No thanks, cool conversion though" to another human being. All that I expect is that a potential opponent will have the basic courtesy to listen to my proposition rather than dismissing it out of hand because of some borderline-religious regard for rules as sacred holy instructions from They Who Must Be Obeyed, The Most Righteous Designers of the Game. If after that they don't want to play me, that's their choice, however while they are not doing anything wrong as you put it, I reject your assertion that they are doing things right and so their position is immune to critique and I am allowed no opinion of it.

If I said "Hey can I use this Knight in my Chaos army"(a total hypothetical as I have neither at the moment), they refused, and their response to me politely asking them why was "Because the rules are the rules, sacred and inviolate", then I have as much right to think of them as being narrow and pedantic at the expense of fun as they do to think of me as some kind of monstrous gaming anarchist. And if they choose to say so in a public venue, say, on some kind of internet discussion forum, then I have just as much right to express my opinion of them in that medium as they do of me.

As for RPGs and wargames being incomparable, I reject the assertion. Rules exist to facilitate gameplay, as a framework, nothing more than that. Participants decide how the game is played and what role the rules take in it; I've played RPG campaigns in which the GM's only role was to ensure a level playing field for a cut-throat backstabbing ruthlessly competitive story where only one character would come out alive, and I've played co-op wargames with and without GMs focused entirely on developing a narrative with no consideration of victory or defeat. You choose to see a distinction because it suits your opinion that wargame rules should be inviolate diktats unless one party begs, pleads, and promises their soul in exchange for a concession from their magnanimous opponent.

Rules are rules.

I expect to play by a certain set of rules when i play a game.

If i walk into a store, and play a random game, I expect rules to be followed.

I'm all for trying new things and seeing how they work, but not on a random game with someone. you tell me beforhand you want to put a knight into your chaos army, and we might discuss the rules for such (where they fall in the allies chart, any potential problems I see that would make it unfun for me to play against etc)

but again, I walk into GW, I say who wants to play a 2000 point game, and someone says I will if i can play my chaos with chaos Knight, I'd probably say no.

 Alpharius wrote:
No, but that's an interesting addition to the list, I guess!

Overall, I'd say the Knight kit is a resounding success for GW.

It fits their aesthetic, obviously, and it has gotten a lot of people excited about it, and fielding it.

I still think it really doesn't 'belong' in a 'regular' game of 40K, but then, I don't really think flyers, super-heavies and Titans do either, outside of Apocalypse.

GW clearly does though, so, I'm either going to have to get used to it, count on TOs to 'regulate and balance' the game since GW can't/won't, or find some other SF skirmish game to play.

Just read the battle report in the weekly #5. Yep sounds like everything other than the knights and the khorne warmachines was rather superfluous to the battle, except for the lucky shot from the chaos vindicator that took out a knight at one point. Hopefully that will not be what every 40k game becomes in local stores from this point on, well unless that is what people want to play. If that is what people want to play then GW will have made them happy.

I don't think GW thinks that super-heavies, titans and flyers belong in 40k, so much as letting them get into regular games means selling more of them, just like Storm of Magic added tons of monstrous creatures into WFB armies. More bigger model access in games means more bigger model sales, and with knights costing $140 each, convincing people to buy *5* of them at once is certainly a red-letter day for GW marketing.

I'd like the knights somewhat if they were like those from the epic rules that spawned them with each different type of knight having its own feel and appearance, not just a weapon swap to show the difference. That might have made me overlook the crazy pricing, and also made the codex a bit more interesting with 3 specific different types of knights, each with their own strengths, weaknesses and uses.

Skriker


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
I'm just glad GW gave us knight models.

The problem with the ally system is that if it was done correctly it would greatly disadvantage all the races that have already been disadvantaged by GWs imperial favoritism. Thus it's inherently flawed with a very stretched suspension of disbelief imposed to make it seem like there is almost always justification except in the most extreme cases. GW has set such a low standard any time something isn't allowed it just seems weird. Maybe one day GW will have enough thought to come up with some mercenary options for all those disadvantaged races to balance out the imperium a bit better and a more representative version of this system can be implemented.

I think chaos should just go back to being allowed to take anything Imperial by paying an added premium.

Give everyone access to every other list as Allies of Convenience and have allied force org slots subtracted from those in the main detachment FOC availability and you will resolve 90% of the problems with the allies table. Gives everyone equal access and possibility, but makes things like Taudar less effective because powers don't cross detachments. Finally it removes the ability of a sub codex allying with the parent codex specifically to spam an extra overpowered/undercosted unit. Only thing it doesn't do is make the table fluffy, but given that the table is barely fluffy now, so what?

Skriker

 Yodhrin wrote:
If I said "Hey can I use this Knight in my Chaos army"(a total hypothetical as I have neither at the moment), they refused, and their response to me politely asking them why was "Because the rules are the rules, sacred and inviolate", then I have as much right to think of them as being narrow and pedantic at the expense of fun as they do to think of me as some kind of monstrous gaming anarchist. And if they choose to say so in a public venue, say, on some kind of internet discussion forum, then I have just as much right to express my opinion of them in that medium as they do of me.

At the risk of beating a dead horse: No, you don't.

As I pointed out above, the only thing that makes this a discussion is the truly and objectively terrible state of GW's rules.

In any other game what you are talking about, this attitude towards the rules, would properly be regarded as curious at best and the attitude you describe in being rebuffed as petulant. No one likes it when the rules of the game turn out not to be the way they thought, and even less so they like it when other people impinge on them with such a moralistic argument. If playing by "the rules" is "narrow and pedantic", then there is really no hope left for the GW hobby as a sport or competition. If that is true, and I admire HBMC's valiant effort to rebuff that notion, then the GW hobby really has become as one GW executive described it: the hobby of throwing money at GW.

So why does GW charge $140 and cheap out on the plastic? Just saw a Knight next to a warhound, there is a large difference in size, the epic knight was not that much smaller than an epic warhound. Makes me think the 28mm leviathans are more to the correct scale.

i think the size is fineish. From a GW perspective if they charged you $140 for a model thats close to the same size as the warhound....why would anyone ever pay for the warhound?

I'm curious to see how it sizes up compared with a baneblade. The two kits were the exact same price at my FLGS this weekend when I went to take a peek and play a few games. I haven't seen any pics of the two side by side yet but in case I missed some feel free to post them in this thread. The baneblade was worth buying at $100 (plus $25 for the extra sponsons) and I picked up two over the years but there is no way I'd pay $140 for a baneblade as currently priced (not sure if the current kit includes the extra sponsons though as I did here it got some sort of revision a year or two back).

 Andrew1975 wrote:
So why does GW charge $140 and cheap out on the plastic? Just saw a Knight next to a warhound, there is a large difference in size, the epic knight was not that much smaller than an epic warhound. Makes me think the 28mm leviathans are more to the correct scale.

None of the models in Epic were ever in scale to each other. At least not until FW maid their models at any rate.

I think knights are supposed to be noticeably smaller than warhounds; after all, knights are only piloted by an individual pilot, whereas a warhound titans are piloted by a princeps and two moderati.

I think that epic wasn't as appropriately scaled as it could have been, and rather GW was working within design constraints. While $140 is a lot for the knight, I don't think GW made it intentionally smaller to rip-off customers.

As far as the Epic scaling goes GW always admitted the inconsistencies of the scale. The infantry, the vehicles, the flyers, and titans were all done at slightly different scales. This means you can only really compare model sizes of vehicles in the same scale. Knights were done in the Vehicle scale which was slightly larger than the scale used for Titans. This is to say comparing an epic Knight to a Warhound doesn't work as well as comparing an Epic Knight to an Epic landraider because the Warhound is relatively smaller than it should be.

Wow how did I miss all the hype behind this long awaited release?!

I bet all all the Imperial Knights fans are saying: "FINALLY!!! All of our angry letters to GW have paid off!"
/sarcasm

I love how they even have Jervis step up and tell us all "Oh yeah, Imperial Knights in 40k go way back. Everybody knows them..."

Thanks GW, it's been a while since you've given us a release that nobody asked for.

If GW offered to give me money if I promised to give a gak about this release, I'd still walk away empty-handed... Wait that's not true, I'd walk away with all the money I didn't spend on Imperial Knights.

One thing I don't get is the hate.

I don't like the Imperial Knight models, so I won't buy them. I'm not going to picket outside of GW HQ with a sign that reads "Less Imperial Knights, More Sisters of Battle!"

 kronk wrote:
One thing I don't get is the hate.

I don't like the Imperial Knight models, so I won't buy them. I'm not going to picket outside of GW HQ with a sign that reads "Less Imperial Knights, More Sisters of Battle!"

Yeah, I don't get it either. I don't like the price or how the rules go about adding them but the model itself is quite nice IMO. If they had just released it as an Apoc unit with a free 1 page rules pdf download like they used to do 2+ years ago, I'd say they'd have knocked it out of the park despite the price. Unfortunately, that type of GW is strictly in the past and it's aggressively priced (to say the least) with rules that cram it down the throat of someone in a 1500pt game. I look forward to facing one at some point in the future in an apoc game though as it does look cool.

Since no one was getting photo of 15mm DF model next to IK model, I had to use a poor copy paste program...