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.

So instead of fleshing out an army we already have (SoB), GW made a new army nobody was asking for. Do we really need ANOTHER Imperial army? Did anybody really want this?

This is just another "hey look guys buy these new models" ploy, I really hate to be TFG but I find myself more and more persuaded to buy a first class ticket on the GW hate train. And even that ticket would probably be overpriced. If this really is a new army, it's ridiculous and unnecessary, and I really wish they would focus on armies that already exist in a sort of "suck limbo" like SoB with their metal only miniatures. They already have factions that need a lot of updates, like a lot of old Chaos marine/daemon models and general codex oversight stupidity.

I hope this isn't true.

 ZultanQ wrote:
So instead of fleshing out an army we already have (SoB), GW made a new army nobody was asking for. Do we really need ANOTHER Imperial army? Did anybody really want this?

This is just another "hey look guys buy these new models" ploy, I really hate to be TFG but I find myself more and more persuaded to buy a first class ticket on the GW hate train. And even that ticket would probably be overpriced. If this really is a new army, it's ridiculous and unnecessary, and I really wish they would focus on armies that already exist in a sort of "suck limbo" like SoB with their metal only miniatures. They already have factions that need a lot of updates, like a lot of old Chaos marine/daemon models and general codex oversight stupidity.

I hope this isn't true.

Actually, there has been interest in seeing knights in 40k.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ZultanQ wrote:
So instead of fleshing out an army we already have (SoB), GW made a new army nobody was asking for. Do we really need ANOTHER Imperial army? Did anybody really want this?

This is just another "hey look guys buy these new models" ploy, I really hate to be TFG but I find myself more and more persuaded to buy a first class ticket on the GW hate train. And even that ticket would probably be overpriced. If this really is a new army, it's ridiculous and unnecessary, and I really wish they would focus on armies that already exist in a sort of "suck limbo" like SoB with their metal only miniatures. They already have factions that need a lot of updates, like a lot of old Chaos marine/daemon models and general codex oversight stupidity.

I hope this isn't true.

Actually, there has been interest in seeing knights in 40k.

Then they could have added them to an existing army that needs such units.

We indeed did get, in effect a new army.

Whats more amusing, is the fact that any army can take them as an 'ally', as nowhere in the WD does it specifically state that knights cannot ally with non- imperial factions

Rules as written regardless of RAI

Cue: rules hilarity, bugs taking knights!? the excuse: well lets just say a hive tyrant or 2 'influenced' the knights to join the hive mind

I question the logic of bringing out new factions when the existing game is so unbalanced.

I guess somewhere someone is already planning on running a unit of Knights with a Farseer and Baron Sathonyx attached for a 2++ re-rollable Knightstar?

The future is Grim Dark indeed

I'm not sure you can attach characters to a unit of vehicles...

yes we got yet another Imperial army....

 DarkWind wrote:
yes we got yet another Imperial army....

As i said to somebody:

ok that means we can now field Titan legions in 40k, just wait until some wag does it, awesome and rather crazy all at the same time

Isn't there four types of Knights? White Dwarf #4 only talks about two of them- the Knight Paladin and Knight Errant. There is also the Knight Crusader and Knight Baron.

I'd really be disappointed if this is the full release of the Knights, and we don't get a proper codex or even eBook data slate. There are a lot of questions still unanswered...

The White Dwarf "Using Imperial Knights" says you can field them as an army in their own right, as a primary detachment of 3-6 Knights, or allies as 3 Knights. OK... Can they ally with everyone then? There is no ally matrix for them, and they are a new "army". Are they counted as HQ, Troops, Elites, FA, Heavy? Are they a Lords of War choice? Is each model a separate unit, or do they all form one unit and must have coherency? Or do they follow the rules for vehicle coherency? Which one is a Warlord, and do we really get to roll on the Warlord table? How do they deploy? The rules entry in White Dwarf also seems redundant and missing rules. It lists the Knight as a Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker) then lists all the special rules a Super-heavy Walker has (Fear, Hammer of Wrath, etc). But then it says nothing about what the rules are for Super-heavy Walkers! You have to dig out your Escalation or Apoc book for that.

Hopefully, we'll get these questions answered soon, or every play group will have to come up with their own rules, FAQs, and errata.

It does look like a new army. Or they wouldn't fit in anywhere else...

 ZultanQ wrote:
So instead of fleshing out an army we already have (SoB), GW made a new army nobody was asking for. Do we really need ANOTHER Imperial army? Did anybody really want this?

This is just another "hey look guys buy these new models" ploy, I really hate to be TFG but I find myself more and more persuaded to buy a first class ticket on the GW hate train. And even that ticket would probably be overpriced. If this really is a new army, it's ridiculous and unnecessary, and I really wish they would focus on armies that already exist in a sort of "suck limbo" like SoB with their metal only miniatures. They already have factions that need a lot of updates, like a lot of old Chaos marine/daemon models and general codex oversight stupidity.

I hope this isn't true.

Lol.

GW wants us to buy a shiny new army consisting of superheavies in a sub-escalation environment. I'm toying with the idea to get one or two for my BA.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Ascalam wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Ascalam wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Odd, I'd thought you'd be thrilled to loot a Knight.

Oh i intend to.....

I just want some NON-imperial orky gubbins too.

Greedy of me, sure, but Orks really could use some love

Looted Hive Crone?

(-:

Now there's an idea...

Looted Mawlocs. Because a true neckbeard would always try to make a Dune reference
I know I would xD

MU WAAAAGH! DIB!


On my to-do list as of now


If we do get a Knight army that is unhurtable by S5 or less it would be interesting, but not unsurmountable.

A lot of armies can spam S 6 + (Edlar being a prime example) and no army is without S6 or better weapons that i know of.

There are also weapons that don't care about the AV such as Plagueswords, EMP etc

wuestenfux wrote:GW wants us to buy a shiny new army consisting of superheavies in a sub-escalation environment. I'm toying with the idea to get one or two for my BA.

Well, it's certainly part of a pattern, right? What better way to say that escalation now = 40k than to have a 40k army comprised of titans.

Seems coherent with the bigger trend.

Tamwulf wrote:Hopefully, we'll get these questions answered soon, or every play group will have to come up with their own rules, FAQs, and errata.

This is perhaps part of the reason we're getting a 7th edition so fast. They want to morph escalation more permanently into the core rules, and to provide for better large unit support in general than the relative hodge-podge that we have otherwise.

It really wouldn't surprise me if we got a codex: imperial knights soon to hammer out the rest.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:Actually, there has been interest in seeing knights in 40k.

Well, this is also part of a bigger trend too.

Forgeworld had fliers. Some people bought them and then cried for them to be in 40k, and now they are (with virtually the same rules). Forgeworld had superheavies. Some people bought them and cried for them to be in 40k, and now they are. Forgeworld had titans. Some people bought them and cried for them to be in 40k, and now they are.

One could be cynical and say that forgeworld is a testing ground for new products, wherein if people are willing to pay ludicrous prices for the forgeworld resin, that means that there will be enough people to buy them when they come out in citadel plastic, and that this is all just a money grab.

Or, on the other hand, people could be cynical and say that this is all just a result of people getting what they wished for. Perhaps GW should ignore their fan base more, not less?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:If we get an army of models that has nothing that can be hurt by less than S6... I was going to say I'll be surprised... but actually I think I'll just be disappointed.

Yeah, it wouldn't be that surprising. I mean, you already can't really play a game of 40k without vast quantities of high-strength weapons. If you can handle a triptide list or mass serpent spam, then you'd be able to handle a knight list.

I guess this gives us just one more set of reasons that heavy bolters are useless...

*cue crotchety old man reminiscing about how in HIS day machine guns were a real weapon that people cared about*

BoomWolf wrote:Admech is apperantly coming to 40k, according to rumors. hope they dont copy-paste the 30k admech...that thing makes op armies without even trying, just spamming troops is op!)

Perhaps this is it. The "ogres" will be knights and the "gnoblars" will be admech. Sort of like how they merged grey knights and the inquisition into a single codex, they could likewise be making a new codex that represents two sub-armies in a single lace.

 Icculus wrote:
If by new army you mean this:

http://www.blacklibrary.com/games-workshop-digital-editions/Codex-Legion-of-the-Damned.html

Then yes, because here is a brand new codex, dedicated to just one unit that gives you rules to field them as an army unto themselves. So all those Codex:Helldrakes jokes are not far off.

You, know... this is curious. I think there might be another major trend here: the death of the codex system.

I mean, with a few exceptions, it used to be for a long time that you played AN army. You showed up with your codex, and the models for the unit your codex you could take. There were ancillary things like forgeworld and chapter approved, but they were just that - ancillary - you generally needed opponent's permission to field them.

But now look at things. Now you have allies, and suppliments that are either their own codex OR allies. And now you have second tier allies (Guard allied with SM allied with =I=) that you can throw in as well. And forgeworld desperately wants us to believe that you don't need player permission to field its stuff anymore. Plus all the other new stuff they're adding in likewise.

It's starting to feel like it's less "you play an army, and select the units you want from it", and more "you select a group of models and then select the rules that they use". The time might come soon when saying "I'm a guard player" is obsolete, and not just because they change the name of the army...

As someone who is a big believer in the codex system, this makes me sad, and should be more than annoying to anyone who thinks 40k should have serious game balance. As mentioned, things like this:

Grim Dark wrote:I guess somewhere someone is already planning on running a unit of Knights with a Farseer and Baron Sathonyx attached for a 2++ re-rollable Knightstar?

Aren't the result of knights or sathonyx or farseers being broken or overpowered, but the problem comes entirely from allowing you to field all of them in the same army.

A game is defined as its rules, and rules, by definition, are restrictions on what players can do. Progressively eliminating restrictions, well...

As posted on the GW digital facebook page, the knights are not super heavies. They're basically giant dreadnoughts and we all know how good those are. The only implication for the future is that it's a non-super heavy unit that sports a D close combat weapon. That gets the question if non-super heavy units will get D strength ranged weapons in the future.

As for the dissolution of the codex system, the ability to bring nonsensical allies, and incredibly over powered units, all of this goes back to general theme of giving the players the wheel to the game. People wanted rules and supplements for niche armies and those were provided. People wanted giant tanks and robots and those were provided. GW is not trying to create a unified, balanced game. They are trying to create a sandbox where you can play with all the toys that you have and sell you even more toys.

The problem is not really GW failing to create a good structure for the game. The problem is that the players took this freedom and created 2++ re-rollable, hit and and run monstrosities. Then they unleash these monstrosities on their fellow gamers who still think that it's a good idea to give a sergeant a plasma pistol and to bring a heavy bolter. The Dr.Moreau's then say that their hideous monsters are within the rules of the game and they cannot be blamed for creating them. Then we all bitch about GW and not the person who brought D weapons to a chainsword fight.

Ailaros, you've spoken at length about having respect for your opponent and trying to communicate with them to create a pleasant experience for both players. I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. GW built us a world where we can create our experiences as we see fit. As unpalatable as it is for some, we will have to sit down and talk to each other more frequently about the environment we want to play in.

bogalubov wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:If we get an army of models that has nothing that can be hurt by less than S6... I was going to say I'll be surprised... but actually I think I'll just be disappointed.

Yeah, it wouldn't be that surprising. I mean, you already can't really play a game of 40k without vast quantities of high-strength weapons. If you can handle a triptide list or mass serpent spam, then you'd be able to handle a knight list.

I guess this gives us just one more set of reasons that heavy bolters are useless...

*cue crotchety old man reminiscing about how in HIS day machine guns were a real weapon that people cared about*

Erm, no. If you can handle triptide or mass serpent spam, that doesn't mean you can handle 5 Knights in an 1850pt game.

And it would be terrible way to change the meta. I know some people like the idea of shaking up the meta, but seriously this is a terrible way to do it. Every infantry squad would be useless. Every upgrade weapon that isn't at least S7 would be a completely useless. The only purpose to the vast majority of models would be to tie up a Knight for a turn until it gets stomped. Many squads would be completely useless, squads with plasma guns would be 1 model that has a 1 in 36 chance of popping a hull point and the other 9 models would sit around looking stupid.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:If we get an army of models that has nothing that can be hurt by less than S6... I was going to say I'll be surprised... but actually I think I'll just be disappointed.

Yeah, it wouldn't be that surprising. I mean, you already can't really play a game of 40k without vast quantities of high-strength weapons. If you can handle a triptide list or mass serpent spam, then you'd be able to handle a knight list.

I guess this gives us just one more set of reasons that heavy bolters are useless...

*cue crotchety old man reminiscing about how in HIS day machine guns were a real weapon that people cared about*

Erm, no. If you can handle triptide or mass serpent spam, that doesn't mean you can handle 5 Knights in an 1850pt game.

And it would be terrible way to change the meta. I know some people like the idea of shaking up the meta, but seriously this is a terrible way to do it. Every infantry squad would be useless. Every upgrade weapon that isn't at least S7 would be a completely useless. The only purpose to the vast majority of models would be to tie up a Knight for a turn until it gets stomped. Many squads would be completely useless, squads with plasma guns would be 1 model that has a 1 in 36 chance of popping a hull point and the other 9 models would sit around looking stupid.

What's really sad is that the necrons still don't care, since they can glance vehicles on a 6 with most of their small arms.
So if this does change the meta, it would just make the necrons stronger.

bogalubov wrote:
As posted on the GW digital facebook page, the knights are not super heavies. They're basically giant dreadnoughts and we all know how good those are. The only implication for the future is that it's a non-super heavy unit that sports a D close combat weapon. That gets the question if non-super heavy units will get D strength ranged weapons in the future.

Huh? Where does it say that?

The WD rules are quite clear, it is a Superheavy Walker. It says UNIT TYPE: Vehicle (Super-heavy Walker). They even specifically say it has all the superheavy rules.

I wanted Knights... But now it looks like my IG wont be getting an awsome walker...
And i dont want to start another army.

 master of ordinance wrote:
I wanted Knights... But now it looks like my IG wont be getting an awsome walker...
And i dont want to start another army.

You can ally them to your Guard. That's what I intend to do.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
I wanted Knights... But now it looks like my IG wont be getting an awsome walker...
And i dont want to start another army.

You can ally them to your Guard. That's what I intend to do.

Knights will need bubble-wrap to defeat the tank-buster squads, and IG make fine Skitarii (AdMech PDF units)

SJ

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

bogalubov wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:If we get an army of models that has nothing that can be hurt by less than S6... I was going to say I'll be surprised... but actually I think I'll just be disappointed.

Yeah, it wouldn't be that surprising. I mean, you already can't really play a game of 40k without vast quantities of high-strength weapons. If you can handle a triptide list or mass serpent spam, then you'd be able to handle a knight list.

I guess this gives us just one more set of reasons that heavy bolters are useless...

*cue crotchety old man reminiscing about how in HIS day machine guns were a real weapon that people cared about*

Erm, no. If you can handle triptide or mass serpent spam, that doesn't mean you can handle 5 Knights in an 1850pt game.

And it would be terrible way to change the meta. I know some people like the idea of shaking up the meta, but seriously this is a terrible way to do it. Every infantry squad would be useless. Every upgrade weapon that isn't at least S7 would be a completely useless. The only purpose to the vast majority of models would be to tie up a Knight for a turn until it gets stomped. Many squads would be completely useless, squads with plasma guns would be 1 model that has a 1 in 36 chance of popping a hull point and the other 9 models would sit around looking stupid.

On that same subject though, how the heck is a 5 knight army going to win a game of objectives short of tabling you? Last I checked Titans can't take objectives.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
On that same subject though, how the heck is a 5 knight army going to win a game of objectives short of tabling you? Last I checked Titans can't take objectives.

Or can they? (-:

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

 Trickstick wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
On that same subject though, how the heck is a 5 knight army going to win a game of objectives short of tabling you? Last I checked Titans can't take objectives.

Or can they? (-:

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

Welp, time to take a trip to the local liquor store so I can get drunk enough to believe this insanity.

I can see a lot of arguments over the validity of those particular rules though.

 Trickstick wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
On that same subject though, how the heck is a 5 knight army going to win a game of objectives short of tabling you? Last I checked Titans can't take objectives.

Or can they? (-:

via Jes Bickham (who is the editor of White Dwarf) on GW Digital Facebook
Some clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: the Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organisation slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

Huh what do you know.

GW staff do take peyote.

 Ailaros wrote:
Well, it's certainly part of a pattern, right? What better way to say that escalation now = 40k than to have a 40k army comprised of titans.

I was thinking the same till I saw that Knight Titans weren't labeled Lords of War nor to be selections in the Escalation detachment. Maybe a mistake? I thought, until this arrived on the scene:

Jes Bickam's facebook post wrote: Some Clarification on the rules we presented in White Dwarf today for some folks here: The Imperial Knights don't occupy any force organization slots, they are not Lords of War, they are an army unto themselves. Something we forgot to say is that all Imperial Knights are scoring units, and if you're playing 3-6 as a primary detachment, pick one as your Warlord.

Ugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops. I see that post has already been reported here. My bad.

So I could run a Tau Farsight Enclave army with an Imperial Knight ally? That would be awesome, could totally paint it up and use decals on the Knight and make it a Farsight Enclave themed Freeblade!

Them being scoring is interested.

And in an army of 4-6 you'd pick one to be the warlord, I wonder if they'll get any interested warlord traits specific to them.

 Ascalam wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Odd, I'd thought you'd be thrilled to loot a Knight.

Oh i intend to.....

I just want some NON-imperial orky gubbins too.

Greedy of me, sure, but Orks really could use some love

No, you're right

anyone know how much money it would take to become majority holder of GW so someone could fix this garbage...

armies remain out dated, don't synergize with themselves and are unbalanced but they magically find time to make a new army where everything is a scoring titan?

I'm HOPING if a Knight codex comes out it's actually something interesting with troops, fast attack, etc.

If it's just "Woo! Take 5 of the same model and call it an army!" It will be extremely lazy and extremely stupid.