First thoughts on Codex: Imperial Knights

[Purifying Tempest]

Do you think the lance restriction was to prevent other armies from taking 3 armigers in a Super heavy detachment and receiving 3 CP and allowing the armigers to have house rules?

You can make a knight a character and give it a Warlord Trait for 1 CP.  You can make a knight a character and give it a relic for 1 CP.  Lances is there to chop this down since it grants characters (and a free relic and warlord trait).  You are netting 3-4 CP right there.  To give you 3 CP to spend for taking armigers basically reduces the cost of entry into relics and traits to nothing, since a Lance gives you those extra bonuses.

 

So if you take Armigers, you don't take a Lance detachment, now you pay CP for those benefits.  You pay extra points, you get free perks and CP in the way of the Lances rule.

 

I do not think there is anything stopping you from taking a knight and 2 Armigers in a normal Super Heavy Detachment to get 3 CP, but now you immediately spend 2 to get a warlord trait and a relic.

 

I think that interaction right there is what they INTENDED on stopping.

 

I bring 3 Lance detachments with 6 Armigers and 3 knights... all 3 are characters with the capability of getting relics and traits for free... now I can spend 1-2 CP as needed to gain extra traits and relics as my codex permits... but I got extra CP to do it with, so the cost actually goes WAY down.

 

Edit: Also, I was stopping by because I am going to centerpiece a Valiant into my Sororitas army.  2 Immolators, 2 Hellhounds, and a Valiant leading the charge into enemy territory :)  Chaff lines beware.

 

I don't expect my army to be super OP or anything.  But it'll be fun, and that's what it looks like the Codex has brought.  Competitively it allows knows to be what they've always been: a skew list that preys on lists unable to handle T8 (or Armor Value in past editions) skew.

 

Just because of that I think it will do well, but probably not well enough to knock the kings off their platforms consistently.

[hermanista]

Battlescribe is now updated to include the knight codex if anyone uses it

[Stray]

 

Do you think the lance restriction was to prevent other armies from taking 3 armigers in a Super heavy detachment and receiving 3 CP and allowing the armigers to have house rules?

You can make a knight a character and give it a Warlord Trait for 1 CP.  You can make a knight a character and give it a relic for 1 CP.  Lances is there to chop this down since it grants characters (and a free relic and warlord trait).  You are netting 3-4 CP right there.  To give you 3 CP to spend for taking armigers basically reduces the cost of entry into relics and traits to nothing, since a Lance gives you those extra bonuses.

 

So if you take Armigers, you don't take a Lance detachment, now you pay CP for those benefits.  You pay extra points, you get free perks and CP in the way of the Lances rule.

 

I do not think there is anything stopping you from taking a knight and 2 Armigers in a normal Super Heavy Detachment to get 3 CP, but now you immediately spend 2 to get a warlord trait and a relic.

 

I think that interaction right there is what they INTENDED on stopping.

 

I bring 3 Lance detachments with 6 Armigers and 3 knights... all 3 are characters with the capability of getting relics and traits for free... now I can spend 1-2 CP as needed to gain extra traits and relics as my codex permits... but I got extra CP to do it with, so the cost actually goes WAY down.

 

Edit: Also, I was stopping by because I am going to centerpiece a Valiant into my Sororitas army.  2 Immolators, 2 Hellhounds, and a Valiant leading the charge into enemy territory   Chaff lines beware.

 

I don't expect my army to be super OP or anything.  But it'll be fun, and that's what it looks like the Codex has brought.  Competitively it allows knows to be what they've always been: a skew list that preys on lists unable to handle T8 (or Armor Value in past editions) skew.

 

Just because of that I think it will do well, but probably not well enough to knock the kings off their platforms consistently.

 

 

Pretty fair points, and you may be right that this was the intent.

 

Thing is, if this was what was seen as problematic... what a foolish way to combat it! 

 

Limit the number of detachments you can use the pre-game strats on, adjust the costs of them, the options are numerous. And most have got to remain better than gutting a faction as a stand-alone force (in terms of CP), while forcing players to rely on the very soup mentality that has been the cause of issues, and that GW themselves have tried to combat in the last 'Big FAQ'!

 

It's mind-boggling in terms of the lack of thought and foresight that went into this aspect of the IK codex.

[hermanista]

I still believe that the Knight codex had gone to the printers at the point they decided the Big FAQ would change up the CP bonus'/new thinking towards them.

 

It is just a case of wait/hope that the faq/errata in 2 weeks fixes it to a reasonable standard.

 

Biggest initial FAQ we've seen for a codex do we think

[aquamarine]

I don't think that was the intent, as though a Lance gives you a 'free' character this does not grant a free trait or relic. Only your Warlord gets them for free.

 

Extra relics cost CP the same for any other faction with a similar stratagem; and spending CP for extra traits gives recipients the character keyword anyway, so Lances are irrelevant for the purpose. The recipient can also be in the same Lance as other characters. Plus, the traits are not terribly powerful in any case.

 

I think they simply didn't want extra CPs from Armigers, which I find odd because:

-there are much cheaper ways to get more CPs i.e. Guard Battalion

-they specifically said before that you COULD get CPs from taking 3 Armigers (when they wanted us to buy Forgebane, which is naughty of GW)

-even allowing this does not get Knights a huge load of CPs compared to multi-battalion armies, even if you max out on Armigers

[Stray]

 

 

I still believe that the Knight codex had gone to the printers at the point they decided the Big FAQ would change up the CP bonus'/new thinking towards them.

It is just a case of wait/hope that the faq/errata in 2 weeks fixes it to a reasonable standard.

Biggest initial FAQ we've seen for a codex do we think

It's certainly the FAQ that I'm going to be most eager to see... It's going to go one of two ways isn't it?

 

I don't think that was the intent, as though a Lance gives you a 'free' character this does not grant a free trait or relic. Only your Warlord gets them for free.

Extra relics cost CP the same for any other faction with a similar stratagem; and spending CP for extra traits gives recipients the character keyword anyway, so Lances are irrelevant for the purpose. The recipient can also be in the same Lance as other characters. Plus, the traits are not terribly powerful in any case.

I think they simply didn't want extra CPs from Armigers, which I find odd because:
-there are much cheaper ways to get more CPs i.e. Guard Battalion
-they specifically said before that you COULD get CPs from taking 3 Armigers (when they wanted us to buy Forgebane, which is naughty of GW)
-even allowing this does not get Knights a huge load of CPs compared to multi-battalion armies, even if you max out on Armigers

Yeah. I think my pet theory is still just Mr C either not grasping well enough how Knights work, or not thinking things through as he was writing.

I don't know all that much about the guy, and I'm certainly not implying any form of malicious intent or incompetence on his part etc - there is some really great stuff in there too. However reading about the guy around the net, he certainly does sadly appear to have a certain reputation... I think i'm on the fence as to whether it's deserved or not.

There's also really good stuff in the codex that is powerful, and we love, but I feel probably should have been toned down. Death Grip for example I'm not sure is costed appropriately at 1CP. It's very, very good...

[aquamarine]

 

I don't think that was the intent, as though a Lance gives you a 'free' character this does not grant a free trait or relic. Only your Warlord gets them for free.

 

Extra relics cost CP the same for any other faction with a similar stratagem; and spending CP for extra traits gives recipients the character keyword anyway, so Lances are irrelevant for the purpose. The recipient can also be in the same Lance as other characters. Plus, the traits are not terribly powerful in any case.

 

I think they simply didn't want extra CPs from Armigers, which I find odd because:

-there are much cheaper ways to get more CPs i.e. Guard Battalion

-they specifically said before that you COULD get CPs from taking 3 Armigers (when they wanted us to buy Forgebane, which is naughty of GW)

-even allowing this does not get Knights a huge load of CPs compared to multi-battalion armies, even if you max out on Armigers

 

Yeah. I think my pet theory is still just Mr C either not grasping well enough how Knights work, or not thinking things through as he was writing.

 

I don't know all that much about the guy, and I'm certainly not implying any form of malicious intent or incompetence on his part etc - there is some really great stuff in there too. However reading about the guy around the net, he certainly does sadly appear to have a certain reputation... I think i'm on the fence as to whether it's deserved or not.

 

There's also really good stuff in the codex that is powerful, and we love, but I feel probably should have been toned down. Death Grip for example I'm not sure is costed appropriately at 1CP. It's very, very good...

 

 

I'm still looking forward to having fun with my knights, it's really only the 'Armiger CP' issue I have any trouble with.

 

Nothing personal against Mr Cruddace, but yes I have heard / known about this about him before, too. I always remember the last WH Empire codex...

[CommodusXIII]

Antique_Nova appears to play with no terrain at all, so sad. Must make everything without a 2++ save suck in your opinion.

 

SJ

No one is going to want to talk to you if that's the way you have a discussion.

[Stray]

 

Play nice hoomans!

 

Moving on...

What do you folk feel you'd like to see covered in the upcoming codex FAQ. The two obvious ones seem to be FW Knights (almost guaranteed to be in there), and CP (could go either way), but are there any others? If you had a wish list...

[Mushkilla]

Removing the section on devastating reach that prevents it from working if the unit has models on the ground floor. It makes it more complicated than it needs to be and also makes it super easy to game. By having models you can reach on the higher floors and a single model you can't reach on the ground floor further back. Oh and it would be nice if it worked for all terrain. Like crates and hills etc.

 

Honestly though the fact that we need to use CP to attack models in ruins is just dumb. It really should be a rule on the knights data sheet.

 

But it doubt they will change it.

 

Oh it would also be nice if knights in an audit detachment could benefit from house traits. Hawkshroud have lore where most of their knights fight solo seconded to other imperium forces. Yet you can't actually run them this way.

 

Other then these and the CP issue, oh and that damned shrine terrain piece the book is really good.

[Stray]

Removing the section on devastating reach that prevents it from working if the unit has models on the ground floor. It makes it more complicated than it needs to be and also makes it super easy to game. By having models you can reach on the higher floors and a single model you can't reach on the ground floor further back. Oh and it would be nice if it worked for all terrain. Like crates and hills etc.

 

Honestly though the fact that we need to use CP to attack models in ruins is just dumb. It really should be a rule on the knights data sheet.

 

 

Yes! I couldn't agree more with you there. The ruins thing is so stupid. It needs to be a standard rule for many, many units. 

 

Presumably as it stands, a Warlord titan has to stand there and sob (well, until he remembers his Quake cannon), while some Guardsmen blow raspberry's at him from a ruin that he towers over O.o

 

It shouldn't be a flash of tactical genius costing CP to remember you're 20ft tall and have a giant chainsaw for an arm, only to forget again the next round :P

[Trixie]

Please FAQ the Cerastus knights would be my request/demand. I have those guys already and If I want to build a legit 40k army I will need some clarification there. Also a points reduction for them in the next chapter approved would also be appreciated :D

[Tyriks]

I really hope they FAQ the sacristan shrine to just need you to end on it (or at most to lose movement speed) to activate. Not shooting for a full turn makes it worthless. Having a penalty at all might seem fair but it really isn't, at least for Questoris knights. The shrine costs almost as much as a RFBC, it shouldn't have further downsides.

[Stray]

I really hope they FAQ the sacristan shrine to just need you to end on it (or at most to lose movement speed) to activate. Not shooting for a full turn makes it worthless. Having a penalty at all might seem fair but it really isn't, at least for Questoris knights. The shrine costs almost as much as a RFBC, it shouldn't have further downsides.

 

I think you're right. Having to end a movement phase docked in it should be penalty enough considering what are useful, but hardly overpowered bonuses.

 

Make it removable too via enemy fire and I really don't think you'd get much complaint from anyone realistically.

[Marshal Reinhard]

The shrine is utterly bizarre. It somehow manages to KEEP getting worse and worse. Its like they thought up the benefits first, then decided "no, that's brokenly good, it needs some real drawbacks!" when the benefits actually range from pitiful to questionable. But someone thought it sounded overpowered so piled massive drawback after massive drawback ontop of it: no shooting, no charging, not even moving! This much we knew about from the rumors. But no, that wasn't enough! Should you actually get charged they also makee a point of it reducing your attack stat to one so you can't defend yourself in CC either. Someone really feared that massive potential of this shrine to break games, eh?

 

And now it turns out the shooting benefit is even worse than those telling the rumors made it out to be:

 

If you're misisng shield breaker missiles it just replenshies those. Yeah that's right, you forgo all shooting, charging, moving and ability to defend yourself in CC for a turn, to replenish the missiles you're limited to firing one of each turn. I mean yeah they're useful, but not quite on the level of firing all your guns and then getting to charge. Someone still thought this sounded like a fair trade though. And in the case you don't have any shieldbreaker missiles or you're fully stocked on them? Well in the next shooting phase, ONE of your random hitdice weapons will fire max shots. YES IT'S NOT EVEN ALL OF THEM! Had it been all of them, it would have been a terrible boon as the way averages works you're better off just firing twice. Now? It's always a massive loss to use, it can't even serve as risk removal for people afraid of rolling low dice! So bad its painful.

[Mushkilla]

Yeah sacrificing movement should be enough. I mean on boards with reasonable terrain and dynamic scoring mobility is so important that standing still for a turn is a huge opportunity cost. At least that's my experience.

[FirstSonofHorus]

Sacristan feels like something chucked in at the last minute. It is so, so bad. I think the codex is great and have no real complaints at this moment but damn that terrain is abysmal.

[CaptainMarsh]

At my store we sold seven Renegade boxes, thirteen codices, and between the Valiant and the Castellan ten of the Dominus Knights. One person almost bought the Shrine, but word of its general crappiness has already spread wide and far. 

[aquamarine]

If I have to go down the IG route to gain CP, I may be tempted by the Tempestus Scions. They look strangely like Guardsmen trying to dress as Knights 

 

Maybe they could be my armed peasant levy alongside my Knights (Questoris) and Squires (Armigers) to keep it all fluffy!

[MARK0SIAN]

I quite like the codex but I agree, everything is still massively overcosted despite the price drop.

 

I was really hoping each knight would drop by around a hundred points each instead of the small adjustments they got. Sadly they still don’t justify their cost and won’t be a competive force on their own.

 

CP is also silly, just means every knights list will now have 180 points of guard with them for cp :(

[Stray]

 

 

 

Wow, way off on Armigers. Both are beasts in their given roles, the only downside is the CP debacle with the Knight Lance Detachment.

 

Warglaive have 2 Attack profiles for their Chain Cleaver.

 

Helverins are Fast Dakka Turrets.

 

SJ

Wait does that mean my 3 Cerastus Knights in a Lance won't gain any command points? That will mightily suck.

 

 

RAW, yes it does. But it's already been stated by GW that this is an oversight, unintended, and will be swiftly FAQ'd. So you'd have to be facing a very anal opponent to not just be allowed to get on with things in the meanwhile

 

 

Did you have a source on that please, Stray? I've been searching for this statement by GW and can't find it.

 

 

Gawd, I'm so sorry buddy - I completely missed this!

 

I don't believe you'll find a written source anywhere, but it was explicitly stated by the Codex writer in a Warhammer TV stream last week. You'll be able to watch the interview if you have a sub over there, otherwise past videos can't be viewed sadly :/

 

I pinky promise it was very clearly stated though.

[Felstone]

I'm still looking forward to having fun with my knights, it's really only the 'Armiger CP' issue I have any trouble with.

 

 

Yup, I'm still planning on picking up a few just in case they get FAQd, even if they aren't super competitive right now in terms of detachments/cp.

[Felstone]

Exalted Court vs Heirlooms, curious what yalls thoughts were on these two stratagems. Relics like the paragon gauntlet combo with death grip seem strong.

[Stray]

Exalted Court vs Heirlooms, curious what yalls thoughts were on these two stratagems. Relics like the paragon gauntlet combo with death grip seem strong.

 

Both are great. You'll use them in practically every list you ever make.

 

For me, 9 time out of 10 I can get away with just using each once within a detachment (that already contains my Warlord). Gives both of the other Knights the Character Keyword, one then gets a relic, the other a trait, and only 2 CP spent.

 

Obviously it depends on what you're taking in your lists though.

[aquamarine]

 

 

 

 

Wow, way off on Armigers. Both are beasts in their given roles, the only downside is the CP debacle with the Knight Lance Detachment.

 

Warglaive have 2 Attack profiles for their Chain Cleaver.

 

Helverins are Fast Dakka Turrets.

 

SJ

Wait does that mean my 3 Cerastus Knights in a Lance won't gain any command points? That will mightily suck.

 

 

RAW, yes it does. But it's already been stated by GW that this is an oversight, unintended, and will be swiftly FAQ'd. So you'd have to be facing a very anal opponent to not just be allowed to get on with things in the meanwhile

 

 

Did you have a source on that please, Stray? I've been searching for this statement by GW and can't find it.

 

 

Gawd, I'm so sorry buddy - I completely missed this!

 

I don't believe you'll find a written source anywhere, but it was explicitly stated by the Codex writer in a Warhammer TV stream last week. You'll be able to watch the interview if you have a sub over there, otherwise past videos can't be viewed sadly :/

 

I pinky promise it was very clearly stated though.

 

 

No worries  and no wonder I couldn't track it down. Do you remember if they were saying the 'unintended oversight' related to just Cerastus Knights, or did they mean Armigers as well (i.e. all Knights)? 

 

 

 

Exalted Court vs Heirlooms, curious what yalls thoughts were on these two stratagems. Relics like the paragon gauntlet combo with death grip seem strong.

 

Both are great. You'll use them in practically every list you ever make.

 

For me, 9 time out of 10 I can get away with just using each once within a detachment (that already contains my Warlord). Gives both of the other Knights the Character Keyword, one then gets a relic, the other a trait, and only 2 CP spent.

 

Obviously it depends on what you're taking in your lists though.

 

 

And give one the reroll / +1CP trait and you have only spent 1 CP