Subscribe Us

header ads

Imperial Knight Codex Leaks




The Imperial Knight codex now has leaked images out so that you can get your first look at what is going to be in this weekend's release. check out the latest on Imperial Knights.


You can see the latest leaked images on Bolter and Chainsword here

Post a Comment

70 Comments

  1. My wallet weeps in anticipation...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ah, so *all* Imperial Knights are now Lords of War, as they should be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, totally the right decision. You'd occasionally see some dude using 2 Knights in his Guard list or whatever and just make a mental note never to play him...

      Delete
    2. As i read it he can still do that via allies.
      Its the way GW intended it.
      1 knight upward as Allie
      3 upward as main

      Delete
  3. That's how it has always been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, they were super heavies but did not have a LoW force org slot

      Delete
    2. Yep. They had no Battlefield Role whatsoever, with the exception of Forge World Knights, which could be taken as Lords of War.

      Delete
    3. Does it really matter though? It makes no difference.

      Delete
    4. @crodon, it does if your local group or tournaments treat Lords of War differently than other battlefield roles.

      Delete
  4. Seems to me that it is still a viable army, I know people are saying that they will all be low but how then can you run them as an army? I think to be taken as allies they will count as low but as an army they will be troops and hvy support as well as hq. I think they are just bringing them in line with

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The FW ones, so that imperial armies can just take one as a low.

      Delete
    2. It doesn't matter of they are LoW. You simply need a detachment to play 40k, not just Force Org slots anymore. As long as you take a detachment, it doesn't matter if it's made up of 30 fast attack choices. Meet the requirements/restrictions and you're perfectly legal.

      Delete
    3. I think the people saying that like it matters don't actually understand how detachments work

      Delete
    4. i think it's just that people play at some tournaments and TO's limit to only one LOW choice.

      That is why i dislike tournaments... too many weird and unnecessary house rules..

      Delete
    5. the best house rule of them all: refuse to play a game based on what the other person brings tot he table.

      totally unnecessary but here we are....we are all inherent WAAC'er's we play to win and avoid losing but in order to win you have to also learn to lose....it's part of the process of becoming an "adult".

      Delete
    6. apply ^ to real world situation/scenario: General A see's General B has more tanks. instead of fighting General A gives up and forfeits a opportunity to win that "war/battle" because he/she was scared to lose otherwise expendable "men" (models).....if the allies did this i wonder what we'd be speaking now.....yeah that's what i am saying....so man up and game against anyone and everyone regardless what they bring.

      Delete
    7. Youre not restrictes on LOW
      Its only the 1 standart FOC that restricts you to 1 per detachment.
      You could have had 2 stompas or banblades for a year now guys!!! Or more in bigger point Games.
      With unbound even more

      Delete
    8. You're not seriously comparing real life to a game?!

      Real life you have to do what you have to do. In my free time I don't want to play a waac idiot who is only playing because his penis is too small and he needs to feel better about himself.

      I want to play and have fun thanks

      Delete
    9. @Phil You cannot take Knights in a CAD, only a Household Detachment. Likewise, you cannot take a knight as a LoW for another detachment (except for the FW ones, because they say you can). Rather, you would take an Oathsworn detachment if you wanted to add them to your non-Knights army. If you click the link that Natfka shared you will see that they are all LoW and their detachments are composed entirely of LoW.

      Delete
    10. Indeed.
      In fact if you take a Knight in a CAD using the current codex, you are in effect losing Objective Secured, since you are now using the FOC in the Knights Codex.

      Lord of War doesn't mean you can take whatever unit from whatever codex and use that... unless their rules say so.

      Delete
    11. Have we actually seen the entire section on taking Knights? The original codex had a stipulation saying that a Knight was a LOW choice for any Imperial force (or as a 1-3 Knight detachment), just because we've not seen that in the current leaks doesn't mean that it's not still a thing.

      I mean what's the point in categorising a unit as a LOW if they can't be fielded outside of their own detachments where their classification is meaningless because they're all the same class?

      Delete
    12. Mauler, why should it be that they are an LoW for any Imperial army now?
      There is an "allied" FOC in the codex, that consists of 1-3 Knights. Any army can contain as many detachments as you want in 7th edition.
      So there is no need for a special rule for how to use them in imperial armies. (It mattered in 6th though where you were limited to how many FOCs you could take)

      Delete
    13. "Have we actually seen the entire section on taking Knights? The original codex had a stipulation saying that a Knight was a LOW choice for any Imperial force"

      No such stipulation exists anywhere in the book. I don't understand why people keep saying it. They could only be taken as part of an Imperial Knight Detachment or in a Formation. They weren't a Lord of War option for anybody. Forge World Knights were the only ones who allowed that sort of thing, and they're not in Codex: Imperial Knights.

      Delete
    14. I keep saying it because I've been immersed in the 30k HH books for the last few months.

      DAMN YE, FW, MIXING MY BRIAN UP WITH YOUR MAGNIFICENT NONSENSE

      I do need to get that Cerastus finished...

      Delete
    15. I do as well, trapped inside my skull, only getting four hours' sleep...

      :'(

      Delete
    16. @ lee no you are the WAAC'er. so nice way of insulting yourself right there. if you refuse to play a WAAC'er makes you one as well. your refusing a valid game based on NOT WANTING to lose, but you cannot exclude the chance of losing if you want or desire to win....again i think this hobby is not for some people. it's not for those that pussy out at the drop of a hat.


      also if i could compare 40k to 40k and still be relevant to a real world situation that describes WAAC'er's refusing to play other more serious hard hitting WAAC'er's.....LOL

      Delete
    17. WAAC = win at all cost because love winninng
      WAAC = win at all close because fear/hate losing.

      many people that comment here are the latter type of WAAC'er.

      i am a PAAC player = Play at all cost"....but no one likes playing 40k where i live so i guess they are all 2nd type of WAAC'ers as well (or too damn poor- thanks GW)

      Delete
  5. Those are pretty amazing. Fun times ahead for my knight army.
    Though the loss of the 3++ with the standard detatchment's warlord galls me a little, considering I mainly field four knights, which is matches no formation...
    Still, can't wait for a large game with Exalted Court + Baronial Court.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, I guess I won't get to play my Adamantine Lance or Knight allies in tournament play anymore.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. honestly it's the right decision tournies that restrict LOWs do so because of super heavy panic. at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

      Delete
    2. The admantium lance is likely no longer valid. At least going by the rule that it's made for last editions codex. However tournies or at least the itc doesn't flat out ban superheavies you will likely still be able to use them in tournies that allow them like the lvo. However I doubt they will allow multiple lords of war which means a lot of the cool formations are out.

      Delete
    3. Tournaments will now open up those resteictions.
      Unless they want Eldar only tournaments???

      GW do these things for a reason. They say how the game is played / what stuff is sold.

      Delete
    4. Adamantium Lance is a formation from the 7th edition.Expansion campaign Sanctus Reach it is and will continue to be a legit formation.. whether the new formations in this "updated" codex play better will remain to be seen

      Delete
    5. Tournaments will adapt based on what the game has, they will likly add more LOW allowance into the tournaments to account for this and then those that go OTT on LOWs will get kerb stomped by the eldar player with all the sD, who in turn will get spanked by lictor shame, and at some point someone will find the counter to that. One this about Tornies is that people can spend the whole year preparing for them and massive sudden changes to the meta can really mess with that so it takes a while for the tournament scene to catch up.

      Delete
    6. That's not happening. Tournaments limit low to 1 unique or ban altogether. It's not just about the imperial Knighut or wraith knight. There are much worse unbalancing lord of wars the tournaments just won't allow with crazy things like hell storm template, apoc blast weapons. High str cover ignoring high volume large blast craziness like the old transcendent ctan with things like 6d6 shooting.
      So saying nonsense like lord of wars are going to be taken in tournaments in multiple is nieve since that's not what any of them even remotely are considering.

      Delete
    7. ^ while i don't tourney frequently i would like to agree it does seem kinda misinformed and naive to think we'll get multi LOW's per tourney setting (i don't participate often but when i do i don't see that as something people want to see happen let alone believe will happen)

      Delete
    8. Well those tournaments are playing 6th ED.
      So who cares what they do?

      Current Edition is 7th and that has LoW in it and it has D-weapons and such.
      Only non Store owners TOs can afford ti Bann all the new units comeing down the road.
      But maybe they should just stop pretending they are playing 7th.
      Even 6th had Eldar revenant Titans as ESC released.
      How many people really attend those butthurt tournaments that are rigged in fav. Of Eldar & demons?

      Delete
  7. Does anyone know the rules to the formation the exalted court of house terryn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really want those rules too!

      Delete
    2. if i said i had them no one would believe me. there is a kind soul online giving them out.....since everyone is a moral knight i won't be sharing the info.

      Delete
    3. I'm not very moral, share them with me!

      Delete
    4. thediceabide - All of them gain Character, all of them gain +1 WS/BS and one gains +2 WS/BS (he is the leader of the court).

      They also have re-roll warlord trait ( I think)

      Delete
    5. That's not the formation I'm talking about "the exalted" is a different formation than the exalted court of house terryn. Court of house terryn is exclusive to the web bundle where you buy 5 Knights. Which no one should have yet since it hasn't shipped.

      Delete
    6. ^ keywords "shouldn't" and "have"......LOL (yet some guy gave me a copy of it.....sucks your all moral knights as i really want to share it....but i was told not to...so i guess i won't)

      Delete
    7. it is cool to know that i am one of the 5 (yes five) people whom have a copy from this kind soul online. but since your all moral knights against piracy in all it's forms you won't be seeing an advance release of the rules. (really sucks when you put your foot in your mouth and say you hate seeing leaks.......because you know file sharing before release is piracy, and your all against it.....enjoy waiting a week or so longer for it)


      note: i am not BSing anyone. (i stand to gain nothing from doing so) but since i am online 19 out of every 24 hours.....well it becomes rather easy to find hard to find stuff.

      and up until everyone spazzed out the other day i was planning on sending the info to Natfka.....so well done Moral Knights....you jumped the shark and screwed the pooch.

      Delete
  8. I guess all the work I put in to my tourney knight army is pointless now, if they are all LOW then all the tourneys in my area are closed to me now... :(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Start your own tournament! With blackjack! And Hookers!

      Delete
    2. Complain about it.
      They cant Bann whole dexes and allow Eldar chees on the other Hand.

      "Eldar rapes" is not the spirit of friendly competition play!

      Delete
    3. Have you played with a wraith knight yet? They couldn't hit a cow's arse with a banjo.

      Delete
    4. Get your TOs to adapt, nothing changed about Knights really, a Paladin is still a Paladin, banning them now would be pretty dickish. Time for them to catch up with 7th edition.

      Delete
    5. Well the Wraith Knight is also a LoW, so should equally be banned.
      But thats not the only issue with the dex ;)

      Delete
  9. Natfka is getting slow these were leaked this morning on facebook :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sometimes, yea. Ive been painting a house. Just finished an hour ago. Took me 5 days.

      Delete
    2. Funny story. I will paint mini's all week, every week. Takes me years before I'll paint a house wall!

      Delete
    3. Lol painting minis>walls

      Delete
    4. Nice, and I as just joking :)

      Delete
  10. Yep, I think TOs are in for a wake-up call. When ranged D from elder, and Jet bike spam is out of control, they will realize that a knight army is just what they need to clean up the game....whose to say that the new mechanicus codex won't have a knight as one of their choices! It just breaks my heart to win best painted with an all knight army, then too know it has seen its last tourney, after over a year working on it....including LEDs and fiber-optics....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. tournies need to gert over their bizzare fear of super heavies and anything that says "LOW" on it. if you can kill a squadron of russes you can kill a knight.

      Delete
    2. A squadron of Leman Russ tanks don't have a 4+ Invulnerable Save on the side of their choice against shooting, have Rear Armor 10 or 11 instead of 12, and don't fight back or Stomp you to death when you get into melee combat with them.

      Delete
    3. I find the ban on all LoWs odd... I mean Logan Grimnar isn't exactly THAT scary, and yet he is still banned with the sD monsters...

      Delete
    4. I would also like to add that, complaining that GW made them LoW and that makes them unplayable in tournaments is really complaining about the wrong organization.
      The problem here is TOs not GW imo.

      Delete
    5. I don't know any tourneys that ban all low just super heavy / gargatuans. Logan has always been still in

      Delete
    6. yeah your right... whole army is considered LoW , theres no specific knight type.

      Delete
    7. TO's have for a while now realized GW offers a rules package that allows players to pick and mix what they like rather than a single right way to play.

      The requests of players have resulted in initiatives like ITC, and Swedish comp in fantasy. These systems are quite flexible and are updated over time. I doubt the knight dex will offer much problems.

      Delete
  11. I had an article posted in "what's on your table" about three weeks ago on this very site :) all about the army. It's funny, since I posted on my Facebook group about this issue I have had so much hate thrown at me by my club mates even when they haven't ever played me! This "low" nonsense is definitely a polarizing subject...

    ReplyDelete