Subscribe Us

header ads

Imperial Knight Codex Information- Detachments, Formations, and More

The Imperial Knight Codex is just hours from hitting the stores depending on where you are. So, the information is really coming, and many of the questions I personally have had are right here. Lords of War really are going to be a mainstay of 40k now.

Please remember that until we get an official release, these are still rumors.

via anonymous sources on Faeit 212
There are some things I've seen and some I haven't so i'll give a quick rundown of each important item just for clarity.

The codex is a mash-up of the Knight Companion and a very well re-written Codex (including fluff).

All five Knight variants are Lords of War (LoW).  Also, if you take the Primary Detachment ALL Knights get Objective Secured.

A Primary "Household Detachment" is consisted of at least 3 LoW with 2 optional LoW.
   Command Benefits - Knight Commander, Lord Baron, Objective Secured

An Allied "Oathsworn Detachment" is consisted of at least 1 LoW with 2 optional LoW
   Comman Benefits - None

The Knightly ranks system as we knew it is now gone.  You no longer have the option of rolling for better stats, it's handled in a much more static but robust way.  In a Household Detachment the Warlord gains the following two rules for free, along with Objective secured for all members of the Detachment;

Lord Baron - This is now the Warlord rank for a Household Detachment.
  +1 to Weapon Skill
  +1 to Ballistic Skill
  No bonus to Ion Shield
  Gains "Character" unit type so can make/accept challenges
  May purchase Heirloom items

Knight Commander
  Lord Baron gains re-roll to Hit during a challenge

All Knight variants share the same stats profile but vary in cost, the costs shown below are base costs without upgrades

Errant - 370
Paladin - 375
Gallant - 325  (Weapons are not specialist so grant +1 attack for 2 CCW's)
Crusader - 425
Warden - 375

There are 5 Formations in total, i'll give basic info on these

Exalted Court - 5 Knights (any type)
All Lord Barons, all have "Character" added tp unit type
1 can must upgraded for free to High King/Princeps
High King gains +2 BS/WS and +1 to Ion Shield

Baronial Court - 3-5 Knights (any type)
One Knight is upgraded to Lord Baron
Ionic Shieldwall - Knights from this formation within 6" of another Knight from the formation gain +1 to front facing Ion Shields
Knightly Vassals - Knights within 12" of the Lord Baron (if he is your warlord) can fire Overwatch (!!!!!!!!!!!) despite being super-heavy walkers and gain Counter-Attack

Tripartite Lance - Warden, Crusader, Gallant
Whilst the live the Knights in the formation are part of a single unit and must act accordingly.  also, whilst alive, each Knight provides the following bonuses
Warden - All shooting attacks made by Formation count enemy cover as 1 less (ie 4+ becomes 5+)
Gallant - Models make D3 Hammer of Wrath attacks
Crusader - All template weapons in formation gain Twin-linked

Gallant Lance - 3 Gallant
Gain Crusader and Rage
Full Tilt - Re-roll failed charge ranges

Skyreaper Lance - 3 Knights of any type
All MUST have Icarus Array
Re-roll to wound against Flying MC/GMC
Re-roll failed armour pen rolls, re-roll glances to get a better result (must accept 2nd result)

Warlord Traits
Warlord and friendly Knights within 12" add +1 to run/charge range
Nominate a weapon to become master-crafted, cannot be an heirloom item
Re-roll to hit in combat if he charges
Warlord +D3 friendly Knights gain Outflank
Re-roll failed Ion saves of a 1
+1 attack

Friendly Armies of the Imperium units within 12" must re-roll failed Morale, Pinning and Fear tests
Gain Rampage
It Will Not Die
Master-crafted Thunderstirke
S;D AP1  Chainsword that can re-roll to hit rolls of 1
Sanctuary.  Ion shield that grants a 6+inv to facings not covered by Ion shield

That's pretty much everything without listing weapons profiles and stat lines!

Post a Comment


  1. Some of the Heirlooms are a bit meh, but otherwise colour me happy!

    1. well from the looks of it you can only take an heirloom on one knight, and only if you take the 3-5 knight detachment. which is kind of a shame (unless something has been missed).

    2. Unless you take the Exalted Court, they're all Barons :)

  2. Gatling overwatch...ouch...

    1. Sadly on anything else it's nearly worthless... Look out! Stubbers!

    2. Its okay. So they won't charge my crusader

    3. I'm glad it's worthless on everything else; part of the SH/GC balance is having no overwatch lol

    4. As if 2 s6ap3 rending hits make the difference much

    5. Watch me roll overwatch. Stupid statistics.... And most people fear the knight anyway, a knight with overwatch and 12 s6 ap3 shots = panic

    6. How about Overwatch on a Cerastus Knight-Acheron? That Formation allows for any Knight, allowing for Forge World Knights as well.

    7. @thediceabide: "Look out! Stubbers!"


    8. Plus doesn't the Gatling have a heavy flamer attached.

    9. Ye, heavy flamer overwatch is not to be sneezed at surely.

    10. @Man of La Mancha: Unless FW states that their knights count as part of that codex, then no they do not. I am pretty sure you have to select Knights from the codex when using those formations. I might be wrong, but I am pretty sure I am not :)

      But FW love to errata their stuff :)

    11. The new knight codex states "any Imperial Knight" for most of the formations (a few formations are knight-specific). The FW knights should therefore qualify (except for the Styrix).

    12. ^^

      Doesn't one of the FW Knights have an uber-flamer?

    13. All of the Cerastus Knights have the following statement on their rules:
      Cerastus Knight-Castigators may be chosen as part of a Codex: Imperial Knights army AS YOU WOULD OTHER TYPES OF Knight. However, owing to their rarity in the 41st Millennium, you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Castigators in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.

      The part I capitalized says to me that they don't need to FAQ anything. If you can use them as you would any of the other Knights in the Codex, then whether they specifically say they are LOW when used with Codex formations or not, they ARE since they are to be used as any other Knight in the Codex would be.

    14. Yep, which makes the Forge World Knight fair game for any Formation which says "any Knight." And yes, the Acheron has a Hellstorm Template weapon, so it'd score a couple automatic hits on a charging unit with its weapon.

    15. Souba - if your first two chargers are MEQs running in a column at full coherency to minimise pie casualties, you can very easily find the remaining charging models to now have an extra 5" added to their charge distance because those two-on-average Gatling hits just erased the two leading models on a 2+ each. If the second model is the full 2" from the first, plus roughly 1" for it's base and then another 2" from the third model you can see where the extra distance comes from and that, vs a Knight that can move 12", is most likely going to be a failed charge.

      La Mancha - interestingly because Hellstorm weapons are only found on SH & GC units (unless I'm mistaken?) they usually don't get overwatch but if/when they do shouldn't it be more than D3? It's a tad larger than a standard Template...?

    16. I was pondering that earlier, Mauler...I have no idea how overwatch would work on a Hellstorm!!?? >_<

  3. Yay. So my knight army is now no longer playable in tournaments. Thanks for f*****ing me over GW. Cause they were winning all the tournies...... And they release the eldar bullshit? Such crap. Takes me back to when they squatted my 5,000pts of metal Dogs of War. What a heaping pile. There goes over a years work down the drain. Sorry, just a bit bitter...

    1. While generally I'm not very supportive of GW's decisions (my kroot mercs got the squat treatment too), this is more of a problem you should have with tournament organizers. It's entirely their decision to handle things that way. GW is not bound to work within a third-party tournament framework.

    2. Knights now conform to every other SH unit's class out there. If you want to moan about rules, look to the TOs that change them, not the company that created the standard.

    3. Aye, TO's are causing that problem, not GW.

    4. Personally i dont see why a tourny wouldnt be open to having a house ruling (no pun i swear) on the knights to bring the level down if they feel they are to strong such as limiting the detachment strength or just not allowing specific ones (i see the court being 1 that some groups will want to ban for example).

      For them to just simply outright ban 1 of the legit armies is extreme and i suspect most will be willing to at least work with people to have a fair deal.

    5. I'm so glad they won't allow knight armies anymore. I'm sorry you poured money into the latest cheese, but the fact that knights invalidate some armies completely, means that a whole army of them shouldn't have been allowed to begin with.

    6. They won't invalidate any armies soon. Every book will be updated to this 7.5/Necrons standard soon enough, and more than capable of fighting Knights (and each other).

    7. @Phil Turner: that's the TO's fault, not GW.

      More proof that the haters have no idea what they're spewing.

    8. Most tournaments will still allow 1 low you just can't spam them or run 3-5 super heavies and call it an army.

    9. Honestly, I would love to se TOs go "full retard" and allow everything.
      Mainly to see how the Meta changes. Maybe Eldar jetbike spam won't be so bad, if they have to go up against Baneblades and Knight spams.

      Just a thought.

      Either way I agree with many people here:
      It's not GW screwing you over, it's your TO's. Blame them not GW in this case.

    10. Yeah, Eldar have no way to deal with massed SH spam.

      Death of the Codex, mate.

    11. McDoogle the brown moser changes his tone more then his socks, last month he was all " don't worry guys all the codexes will get the tone down of power the other 7th just wait and see"

    12. actually it is GW's fault McDoogle. last i checked those players didn't write the rules or release the models.....GW did, and they can shoulder the responsibility of what they release, but they don't and expect us to foot the "bill" when they FUBAR things....sure asshat players are a problem but this time it is GW's fault that armies might be invalidated by certain changes in certain game settings.

      +1 Nova......truth #ShapechangingDoogle

    13. and also it is the players and the TO fault as well, but largely GW's, it is the players: because we decide what is good based on what we have and thus ignore the weaker units and are responsible in part for the power creep to grow, the TO fault for enforcing limits which on the one hand reduces asshattery and also so both players enjoy the game within a timely manner, but it is GW's fault ultimately as they change things all in the quest of money...they theoretically don't and never have needed write more than one edition of rules.....personally for me it'd be 3.5/4th but everyone is different. they change up so we get updates, which invalidate some units or ultimately it is GW who should be responsible...but they aren't and choose to hide behind the player or the TO.....true story.

    14. i must add "IF" to the above comments of mine "if GW release something and it invalidates something, then GW should be responsible for that change (atleast in name alone, then it is up to the players and community to decide upon)"

      and also: be careful with your money. if something is invalidated soon after you bought it, then own your mistake and move on.

    15. LOL @ "all codexes will soon be updated to 7.5 Necron/Decurion style"
      Even if you somehow believed that, we'd be looking at a <1 year lifespan on how many codexes? Stop baiting the comments section of every article on this blog macdougle, your schtick is played out.

  4. Can anyone tell me the name of either the house or freeblade on the article picture? Many Thanks!

  5. They should have released knights with this dex and scrapped the last one. Also the knight kit would be better as just one. Now it will confuse ppl that don't know anything about hammers, ie the ppl buying presents lol wtf

  6. Probably a stupid question, but does this new codex render the 'Adamantine Lance' formation defunct?

    1. I don't think so. I'm pretty sure formations don't change.

    2. Ad lance was a 7th edition campaign formation and no prices or rules changed from the codex that would even impact it. So I would say still legal.

    3. Yeah, I would say it's legal.

    4. new codex, new rules all previous is out ala Iyanden.
      Non of those rules change anything either but it is out as per the GW's "written for a previous incarnation of the army statement"

    5. There's nothing invalidating anything unless the supplemental content is actually incompatible. I don't know where this attitude comes from because it's not an official standing. Yeah, you may not be able to buy certain books anymore but if they still work, they still work.

      For instance Iyanden is still a perfectly valid force to run, you just have the unfortunate drawback of not having Wraith Troops *but nothing in the Iyanden supplement has anything to do with that change*. It's basically a collection of relics, warlord traits and a few special rules, the only one of which that conflicts is the 1 HQ = 5 Spiritseers and that is only a problem if you're using the new Warhost detachment or Formations.

      Even GW Customer Support said "You can make it work" which is really simple. Thanks to the 6th -> 7th change not really impacting the core ruleset or codex structure much what books work in 6th still usually work in 7th, like Apoc, it's only when there's significant changes to multiple units that a supplement is rendered IA12 being completely messed up by the 7E Necron codex and IA11 with 6E Eldar.

    6. GW's "written for a previous incarnation of the army statement"

      ... that is one fine piece of gibberish

    7. Can't say that I recall seeing that anywhere?

    8. I do not disagree that it is flimsy, and Mauler I didnt bother to look up the verb-age from the supposed GW rep either just reiterating the message of said letter. which you are right they Said "you can make it work" While they also stated "Not written with Current Codex in mind" In either case Im pretty sure some of the new formations are better anyway.

      Ultimately i dont really care i would just like to see the same treatment for new books and their supplements/ datasheets.
      I am perfectly fine with people using or not using Iyanden or Ad Lance but in the end it is up to the TO's

    9. iyanden are actually in a worse position given there is no way to buy the book officially

    10. Aaron, gotcha! Thanks for clearing that up, I thought I was missing a line in the BRB or something! lol

  7. I would say no as that book is still recent and applicable and there is no contradicting rules present so I for one will sti'll be using it

  8. I would say no as that book is still recent and applicable and there is no contradicting rules present so I for one will sti'll be using it

  9. All Knights get Objective Secured? Ouch!!

    My 'nids couldn't kill an army of them but at least we could steal objectives and try to outscore. What do I do now? I guess take 270 gribblies and flood the table and hope for the best.

    1. Only if they are a Household Detachment. If they're from a formation they don't get OS.

    2. they cant take the objective if they cant GET to the objective! :D

    3. I fully expect the next Nid codex will have some big baddie with a Str D bite/melee. If not a rework of something that already exists being given it.

    4. I could see the warlord and/or warp blast becoming str D in the next 'nid dex. And there's the plastic dominatrix rumor... 'Nids definitely need a non fw, reasonably (point) costed gc.
      I could also see trygons (or possibly just primes) and possibly tyrannofexes becoming gcs as well, since trygons used to be anyways and tyrannofexes are stated to be the smallest species of bio-titan.

    5. Swarmlord, not warlord. Stupid autocorrect.

    6. IMO Tyranids would need a new unit to get S:D into their codex. Nothing else comes close to S10 AP1-2 apart from Warp Lance and that will most likely result in a price hike for Zoanthropes.

      More likely is the FW GCs getting D melee attacks, as a 'Phant should deffo have already.