Subscribe Us

header ads

Imperial Knight New Model Releases



There are a lot of rumors about new Imperial Knights, and even re-directs (which have been removed now) have shown Imperial Knight releases coming in the near future. Two new models, a Warden and Crusader are coming, and this rumor points to them with some new updates and formations coming.


Please remember that these are rumors.

via Bird in the Trees on Bols
Both Knights are coming via a combined combo kit.
Plastic kit will be released in the short-term, but the exact week is unknown.
The Warden & Crusader will share White Dwarf only rules initially, with inclusion in a codex coming later.
The new designs do not share the “turtle shell” carapace, and have a divergent appearance.
Both models share an up-armored, brutal appearance compared to the Paladin/Errant model.
Both share three weapon hardpoints, 2 arms and a top carapace mount.
Both new Knights share a Heavy Support position in a Imperial Knights army list.
Expect an Imperial Knights “Decurion” formation to be arriving with the new kits.

Post a Comment

49 Comments

  1. They were always in the old material.

    It's how much they diverge that worries me. If they fit stylistically all is good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Forgeworld ones technically are divergent from the Paladin/Errant design, yet they fit well enough.

      Delete
    2. That's because the FW Cerasus shares a load of design cues with the GW Questoris pattern; armour trim, "turtle" carapace, pauldrons & armour plating...even deviating from the carapace will be a major departure....mwer...

      Delete
  2. Sweet. I may have to suspend my gw boycott for one of these. Have to see the rules first, because its not tau or eldar it might be lame. Fingers crossed that its good.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's obvioisly going to point cost much worse then elder wraithknights and current Knights. I suspect if they get a str d cannon its going to cost upward of 400-450 points.

      Delete
    2. Yes, just like everyone assumed the new Eldar codex would list as the Wraithknight's new point cost?

      Delete
    3. well we assumed better weapons then the IK would logicly mean more points.

      Delete
    4. Samuel how do you know? There's a new Knight codex on the way so they could easily refactor the points costs, possibly including a point decrease for the Paladin and Errant to bring them closer to parity with the Wraithknight.

      Delete
    5. Because the rumours say they are not redoing the codex with these models. So the old price stays the same. And these knoghts are supposed to be more heavily armed, armored versions of the other Knights. The other plastic knoghts already cost 375 with forgeworld knoghts costing more so me saying 400 is hardly a stretch by any means.
      Unless of course your the first person claiming Gw would intentionally kill sales on all other knoghts by purposefully undercoating these knoghs over 100 points less then every other knoght version. Ya I don't see that happening.

      Delete
    6. imperial knight is crap in comparison to a wraithknight and it is more expensive than a wk, so by using that logic and also noting that there will be an updated dex soon then i can easily see the IK drop back to 195pts and this new knight be around current knight price point. (i don't see imperial units costing almost 3 times as much and atleast 2 times less efficient for same job, if we do then GW shot themselves in the face again. IK or WK.....oh i'll go WK.....says all the WAAC'ers *ever* if that turns out true)

      Delete
    7. While I could see them dropping the points cost of the current knights, 195 is absolutely laughable and would never happen. 290 to low 300s could happen though, would bring it closer to being in line with recent releases. 195 would be significantly less than the new bloodthirster with the I1 D axe, which just isn't happening.

      Delete
    8. Wraithknights got better weapons AND unit type for 50 points, when they were around that much cheaper than they should've been in the first place. This sort of conjecture is getting to be completely pointless.

      Delete
    9. Maybe I should by a WK ally for my Dark Eldar, seeing as I hear so much about them and their objectively always-superior loadout. Firing large blasts to wipe out infantry across the table and then charging in with D-melee seems like it would have a good place in my army.

      What's that? I can only get D-melee if I leave the big guns at home, and they're strictly for shooting single models only? Oh, but... Ok...

      (The point of this post is not to say that the WK isn't better than the IK, the point is that the level of exaggeration gets quite silly. Listening to the tears you'd think the IK had no merits over the WK, which is absolutely not true.)

      Delete
  3. So wait the redirects have been removed? Is GW finally catching on to the new rumour confirmation scheme?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The first question that occurred to me, too. Any evidence this is happening with other redirects, Natfka?

      Or, perhaps, since the cat is out of the bag for known redirects, we'll simply stop seeing any new ones.

      Delete
    2. They seem to be done now. There were some rumors last weekend that GW was working on removing them.

      This is OK though. That was a major source of leaks. Still a lot to consider from what Atia discovered... forgeworld directs, Imperial Knights, and Cult Mechanicus.

      Delete
    3. as it is the redirects aren't something I'd rely too heavily on. after all, it'd be reasonably easy for their web guys to make redirects to all sorts of things on their coffee breaks just to troll sites like that

      Delete
    4. Don't forget Dark Angels! =D

      Delete
    5. Yup internal trolling was always likely even if its just for fun, once embedded space invaders on the homepage of a UK university which you accessed via the konami code just becuase i was broed and could. As i have said many times a redirect on its own proves nothing, but it would lend weight to the rumor.

      Delete
  4. "When in their new Detachment, all knights within 6 inches of each other may still claim their invul against strength D ranged attacks."

    I'm 70% joking, 30% serious. You laugh, but is it really that improbable? We'll just see how their points, rules, and tabletop practicality pan out in practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You already get your invuln 5/6th the time

      Delete
    2. The only thing that works on str d is void shields. They won't make a super invulnerablr save that makes no sense. But void shields are common for Titans. I rather they don't give these knoghts any invul save and just give them 3 regenrsting or 4+ non regening void shields.

      Delete
    3. Read the strength D rules in the 7th ed rulebook if you think str D still ignores invulns.

      I swear, if people actually knew the rules for str D there would be so much less panic over the new eldar codex.

      Delete
    4. Played two games today, one against the new Eldar and one as the new Eldar. Both times d-weapons were used, both times they were completely fine. All of the D-weaponry seems to have really short range outside of the WK weapons. Set up 3 D-cannons in a central position where they could cover multiple objectives (malestorm) and found myself wishing they were the monofilament ones instead halfway through the game. In the other game my opponent brought some too, and didn't get to fire them even once.

      They're very manageable.

      Delete
    5. Unahim, you don't mention what armies were facing off against Eldar in either game, so I can't really judge them that well. An IG player might completely laugh off the short range, but someone playing 'Nids might think otherwise.

      Also I could have sworn that there were special detachment rules that allowed for better mobility, move/shoot ability, etc. I don't know how many people would use static D-weapons to be honest, and I don't play Eldar so /shrug. Moving a WK up the middle to soak fire, Wraithguard in a WS rushing up to pop out and shoot something, and I could have sworn there was a way to get move-and-shoot weapon platforms...point being, short range is an issue to be sure, but I'm honestly not sure how many people would really be static with them.

      Delete
    6. @VonCrown

      Should have said 'even on a roll of 6'. Sorry I wasn't more clear, I was honestly trying to suggest a route GW might take ... After the last few months, I don't think anything counts as "too far fetched" to consider

      Delete
  5. So these will be like mini Reaver Titans then? Awesome! I'm fairly certain that in the old fluff, one of these variants had a Quake Cannon no?

    ReplyDelete
  6. My question is....Is close combat ever going to be revelant again? I miss playing Khorne

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The meta has changed. The 2nd stage of 7ed we're now in is far more close combat oriented than 6ed: Thunderwolf Cavalry, Nemezis Grey Knights, new Blood Angels, Necron Wraiths are all very competitive melee options (probably Khorne Daemonkin too).

      Delete
    2. It's true. People need to have strategies to defend against big, durable, killy melee units. Khorne Daemonkin can really wreck face in melee because of all the buffs they get each turn, and being able to summon reinforcements with ease.

      I think we can safely say that assault is back, just not for everyone. Don't expect to win an assault with Cultists or Kroot.

      Delete
    3. Dark Eldar are also pretty good in CC with Coven units. The Grotesquerie formation wrecks face against anything that doesn't spam instant death attacks (like Grey Knights).

      3 wounds per model, T5 (potentially 6), S5, poison +4, ID on 6s, FnP... That's a pretty awesome assault unit.

      Delete
    4. I reduced a melee oriented tyrants list to one flyrant last week using the coven units. Grotesques are freaking nasty in cc.

      Delete
    5. Thomas Gardiner, Grey Knights spam instant death like marines spam bolters... (it's standard equipment). At least Force is a harder decision these days :P

      Delete
  7. I may even be tempted myself by one of these, it was the turtle shell design I didn't like on the current ones.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So the clans are coming. When are the invading the inner sphere:) seriously hoping they are not being called warden and crusader. Blatant rip off from battle tech.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd give my left nut for a rever sized timber wolf. :)

      Delete
    2. Seriously? I may not be familiar with battle tech, but the last i checked, the words 'warden' and 'crusader' evolved long before that game did.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, it is not not something new, both the Warden and the Crusader are present since Adeptus Titanicus, in the late 80s...^^

      Delete
    4. Battle tech started in 83-84 by FASA corp. 40k aka rogue trader started in 86 i believe.

      Delete
    5. Not to mention there has been Knight Wardens and Crusaders since Epic in the 1980's... So yeah... Who's ripping off who?

      Delete
    6. and the clans wheren't introduced until 1990. and the terms where used to describe a political split between the clans. not two battlemech varients. there IS a crusader battlemech (which is very very differnt from GWs) but there's no Warden mech. in short accusing them of copying battletech is pretty clueless. Although I'm gonna second the "left nut for a reaver sized timby" comment

      Delete
    7. If we wanna get technical:

      I believe Battletech was introduced before Imperial Knights were added to Epic. In fact, the White Dwarf that introduced us to the Knight "Houses" and Eldar "Clans" came out in June of 1990, I believe.

      Almost a year prior to that issue of White Dwarf, the first novel in the Blood of Kerensky trilogy was released. This was followed up in May of 1990 by Technical Readout 3050, which is basically when the Clan rules were introduced to the Inner Sphere.

      And if you believe the hearsay, the Knights were added to the 40k setting by GW specifically to appeal to those people who were playing Battletech. It was supposedly a direct response to the growing popularity of that game. Whether this is actual truth, I can't say.

      Now, that all aside, the names "Warden" and "Crusader" aren't exclusive to Battletech by far. They're reasonably generic names that have existed in the 40k setting since the early 90's. So this iteration of them is definitely NOT a "rip off" of Battletech, even if it can be argued that the original introduction of them MAY have been.

      Delete
    8. I don't want to be the devil's advocate, but the original Adeptus Titanicus game was developed as a response to the popularity of Fasa's Battletech. That said I think the Knight names such as Errant, Paladin, Crusader, etc. are used because they are synonyms, not to rip anything off.

      Delete
    9. @richard powell
      yeah, i remember those days.
      your post was very informative.
      helps to remind people of the mountains of ideas under GWs "IP"...
      seriously, the world has gone insane for money...
      thank you.

      Delete
  9. There are tools which find redirects, you don't need to know the URLs. You would think a 4m build would come with a separate test site.

    ReplyDelete