Codex: Imperial Knights?!

[gman25639]

Ok, check out this on belloflostsouls! Apprently there is a full codex for the knights now?! Maybe I just wasn't paying attention to goings-on at GW but this thing coming out of the blue... what does this mean for us? I'm thinking they might get fleshed out a little more than the rules in the white dwarf. if they get some sort of shooty knight, now what? thoughts?
www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/03/40k-sound-charge-imperial-knights-codex.html

[maeloke]

Old news, friend. And yes, GW is now assigning the 'codex' identifier to a faction with a single miniature with two possible builds.

Perhaps we can convince them to release Codex: Flyrant.

[julianrwr]

We have a slowpoke, or a haruspex...

[mattblowers]

While we're on the subject once again (and before the discussion breaks down into whether or not the knight can be charged by units that can't hurt it and how many blind checks gargoyles cause) it is interesting to note that there is nothing in the codex that makes Knights contesting units. Since they are not MCs and are vehicles, they cannot contest objectives. This (if true) would mean that while a Knight can take an objective, they would automatically lose it to a lowly gaunt that happened to make it to the objective. A gaunt can take and contest an objective while a Knight can only take one. This is the reasoning I have heard thrown about, what says the hive?

[gigasnail]

Yeah there's a long funny article on BoLS laughing at the utter lack of playtesting that went into the rules for this thing.

[WestRider]

Mar 14, 2014 20:02:27 GMT mattblowers said:

While we're on the subject once again (and before the discussion breaks down into whether or not the knight can be charged by units that can't hurt it and how many blind checks gargoyles cause) it is interesting to note that there is nothing in the codex that makes Knights contesting units. Since they are not MCs and are vehicles, they cannot contest objectives. This (if true) would mean that while a Knight can take an objective, they would automatically lose it to a lowly gaunt that happened to make it to the objective. A gaunt can take and contest an objective while a Knight can only take one. This is the reasoning I have heard thrown about, what says the hive?

As I understand it, that argument has been going on pretty much since 6th Ed dropped, because the same issue comes up with HS/FA Vehicles in Big Guns Never Tire and The Scouring. Haven't seen a clear consensus yet.

I was seriously disappointed in the Knights Dex. Only included two of the seven classic patterns, and they wrote a whole bunch of brand new fluff to make them even less corruptible than Space Marines cutting out sales from anyone who might have wanted to convert Chaos Knights. Never mind that in Epic, Traitor Knight Houses were a big deal, and it was actually only the Traitor Knights that made it into the core books of 3rd Ed Epic, not the Loyalist ones.

So much wasted potential compared to what they could have done with a couple more optional sprues and a couple more pages of Rules.

[N.I.B.]

Already tournaments in my region are flagging for codex: IK will never be allowed other than as allies. So I'm sitting pretty cool.

[beeva]

The word "Codex" is banded around a lot lately...

[commandersasha]

C:IK has 7 pages of rules. SEVEN. The fluff is limited, although there is another nice book full of fluff, for another £25...

This should have been awesome. I have friends who have been waiting since Epic for Knights.

They could have had a few sizes of Knight, variants within the sizes, then lots of wargear options, allowing you to customise off basic kits. GW and Forgeworld could have rolled out endless upgrade sprues. Most geeks love big robots, we would have blown £££ on Knight armies.

Stompa counts-as-knights. Revenant and Riptide Knights. Renegade, Cultist or Ecclesiarch Knights. Shooty, Combat or defensive patterns.

Who the hell in GW thinks that the Tyranid cut-and-paste, and the Knight 2 page codex formats are going to impress us?!?!

My steampunk pirate count-as-Dark Eldar will be getting an Armoured Core model for their Knight, GW gets nothing from me until their development team gets better!

[Inquisitor Stingray]

Mar 14, 2014 19:35:27 GMT maeloke said:

Old news, friend. And yes, GW is now assigning the 'codex' identifier to a faction with a single miniature with two possible builds.

Perhaps we can convince them to release Codex: Flyrant.

Lol, with or without Electro-Grubs. That'll be $60.

Mar 14, 2014 23:00:09 GMT beeva said:

The word "Codex" is banded around a lot lately...

Yeah, this kind of bothers me as well. Especially with the Tempestus Militarum whom so obviously strike me as a Supplement, but are apparently a codex in their own right, with new matrices, new detachment options and new cheese...

[Raven]

Mar 14, 2014 20:02:27 GMT mattblowers said:

While we're on the subject once again (and before the discussion breaks down into whether or not the knight can be charged by units that can't hurt it and how many blind checks gargoyles cause) it is interesting to note that there is nothing in the codex that makes Knights contesting units. Since they are not MCs and are vehicles, they cannot contest objectives. This (if true) would mean that while a Knight can take an objective, they would automatically lose it to a lowly gaunt that happened to make it to the objective. A gaunt can take and contest an objective while a Knight can only take one. This is the reasoning I have heard thrown about, what says the hive?

That is the best news I've had all day, I finally have the beginnings of a plan to deal with Knights.

[greyseer]

Mar 14, 2014 21:49:35 GMT WestRider said:

...and they wrote a whole bunch of brand new fluff to make them even less corruptible than Space Marines cutting out sales from anyone who might have wanted to convert Chaos Knights. Never mind that in Epic, Traitor Knight Houses were a big deal, and it was actually only the Traitor Knights that made it into the core books of 3rd Ed Epic, not the Loyalist ones.

The Codex is specifically for Imperial Knight Houses and those that support the Imperium. Aside from that, it clearly makes mention of the existence of traitor Knights and the fate of those that have fallen to Chaos.

Our local group has a few players who'll be fielding Chaos Knights in friendly games, and they're converting them up right now. And if you run a full army (3 minimum), it really only comes down to modelling.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using proboards

[Inquisitor Stingray]

I suppose there's the odd chance that they'll make a Traitor Knight kit or add-on later on. More likely they'll introduce a no-discount bundle of five Helbrutes that lets you glue them together and pretend your army is on equal footing with the Imperium. Call it the 'Helknight Bananasplit Formation' or something.

[bolk]

Mar 14, 2014 23:04:52 GMT commandersasha said:

C:IK has 7 pages of rules. SEVEN. The fluff is limited, although there is another nice book full of fluff, for another £25...

This should have been awesome. I have friends who have been waiting since Epic for Knights.

They could have had a few sizes of Knight, variants within the sizes, then lots of wargear options, allowing you to customise off basic kits. GW and Forgeworld could have rolled out endless upgrade sprues. Most geeks love big robots, we would have blown £££ on Knight armies.

Stompa counts-as-knights. Revenant and Riptide Knights. Renegade, Cultist or Ecclesiarch Knights. Shooty, Combat or defensive patterns.

Who the hell in GW thinks that the Tyranid cut-and-paste, and the Knight 2 page codex formats are going to impress us?!?!

My steampunk pirate count-as-Dark Eldar will be getting an Armoured Core model for their Knight, GW gets nothing from me until their development team gets better!

This very much sums up what I`ve been thinking over the last few months. GW plain out said that they`re a plastic model company, so ok, that`s fair and square, you wanna sell models. But what smartass at GW thinks that this (please do not swear) business strategy is going to sell models? Sure, Jimmy at age 12 finds a Hive Tyrant, Imperial Knight, Demon Prince etc. awesome despite the game rules, but what about us older folks? No matter what business you`re in, being a stubborn and arrogant (please do not swear) that doesn`t listen to your customers is not going to get you more customers. Quite the opposite. I just don`t see the logic in this.
Just consider how much money GW could have made if they had made Deathspitters, Venom cannons, Shock Cannons, Rupture Cannons, Pyrovores, Haruspexes, Lictors, Genestealers, Raveners, Warriors even, etc actually good and viable. No, instead they made a copy and paste codex probably put together in less than a week, which again probably saw very little or no playtesting. It`s quite obvious that they understand what Tyranid players spam in their lists: Devourers with Brainleech Worms, as many as possible. And what did FW release quite recently for Tyranids? Exactly, Devourers with Brainleech Worms. So they understand how to exploit the business. Why not do it on a bigger scale with an army that gets a new, shiny codex by just using maybe a month or 2 atleast on serious writing and playtesting?

[Raven]

My theory: The people making the current business decisions secretly hate the company and want it to fail.