Imperial Knights Roundup

[Mr Mystery]

Meh.

It's a bonus, not the core rules so I can't say I'm fussed either way.

Should be picking up a couple of Wardens next weekend.

[daboarder]

[url=http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Exalted-Court-House-Terryn-Rules-Bundle]Exalted Court of House Terryn[/url]

I see they're trying a new strategy to get people to buy the web exclusive bundles... datasheets you can only get in said bundles.

Dumbest idea yet

[Kesher]

The New Knights are HERE! Checkout my newest White Dwarf review. [url]http://spikeybitsblog.com/category/white-dwarf[/url]

Click [URL="http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=rbaer0002"]HERE[/URL] to [URL="http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=rbaer0002"]SUBSCRIBE[/URL] to our channel.

[Erik Setzer]

It's a bonus, not the core rules so I can't say I'm fussed either way.

It depends on what the rules are like. It just reminds me a lot of EA's strategy of tossing in "bonus" stuff that's better than the core stuff, rewarding those who spend more money.

[DarkLink]

[url=http://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Exalted-Court-House-Terryn-Rules-Bundle]Exalted Court of House Terryn[/url]

I see they're trying a new strategy to get people to buy the web exclusive bundles... datasheets you can only get in said bundles.

- - - Updated - - -



You among them, it would seem.

Rumour is anything you don't know is true.

If speculation gets repeated as rumour, it becomes rumour.

Go to the dictionary, you will find these two definitions:

Rumor: a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Rumors come from some source which you may or may not be able to trust. You don't have to believe rumors, but there is always a distinct possibility that they are true. In the context of 40k, we have a lot of sources who legitimately see GW's products during their various stages of development, and a lot of these sources are frequently very accurate. In the cases in which they aren't accurate, it's frequently very difficult to tell if it's because the source is lying or GW simply changed their product*. As a result, it's appropriate to take rumors with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially from new and unverified sources.




Meanwhile, speculation is quite literally something that someone made up. It is not based on someone seeing a new codex before its release date, or hearing from a GW employee that they're working on models from X, it's nothing more than random joe schmoe taking a wild guess at what GW will do next. That's not to say that GW isn't sometimes predictable, or that joe schmoe can get lucky, but there's no reason at all to expect speculation to come true.




As a mature adult, it should also be expected for you to act like a mature adult and behave in a reasonable, polite manner rather than simply outright accusing pretty much any and all rumor sources as being liars, doubly so when you do not know if their rumor wasn't accurate due to GW design changes* or them mishearing/misunderstanding something.

Take Bigred. I've never had the pleasure in real life, though I heard he was at the LVO, but by all accounts from the people I know who've met him he's a cool guy. He runs BOLS so the community has a place to talk about stuff like this, and he puts up rumor compilations so that people have easier access to said rumors. He's also constantly mocked and ridiculed within certain circles because he has the gall to forward rumors and let people decide for themselves whether or not to believe in said rumors. It's all-around childish behavior. Maybe you find it acceptable, but I do not. If you're defending that behavior, then we've got a problem.



*Despite what some people seem to think, yes, GW does change their rules over the course of production. In our local gaming community there's a guy who worked as a game designer for various tabletop gaming companies, and he actually got his hands on an early playtest copy of the current CSM codex from GW. I saw it, and I saw it before the CSM book came out. Same artwork, same stories and fluff, same everything, except the rules were fairly different. For one, Veterans of the Long War granted Preferred Enemy. That's not in the current codex now. Is it really that difficult to grasp that this guy, who knows for a fact that VotLW grants PE in GW's current playtest rules, might not actually be a liar when the final codex comes out and VotLW is different? Apparently it is.

[Houghten]

Go to the dictionary, you will find these two definitions:

Rumor: a currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth.

Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Rumors come from some source which you may or may not be able to trust. You don't have to believe rumors, but there is always a distinct possibility that they are true. In the context of 40k, we have a lot of sources who legitimately see GW's products during their various stages of development, and a lot of these sources are frequently very accurate. In the cases in which they aren't accurate, it's frequently very difficult to tell if it's because the source is lying or GW simply changed their product*. As a result, it's appropriate to take rumors with a healthy dose of skepticism, especially from new and unverified sources.

Meanwhile, speculation is quite literally something that someone made up. It is not based on someone seeing a new codex before its release date, or hearing from a GW employee that they're working on models from X, it's nothing more than random joe schmoe taking a wild guess at what GW will do next. That's not to say that GW isn't sometimes predictable, or that joe schmoe can get lucky, but there's no reason at all to expect speculation to come true.

This isn't Linnaean taxonomy, where categories are mutually exclusive and based on measurable criteria. You can't be a three-toed toad and a four-toed toad at the same time, but a given datum can simultaneously be speculation and rumour. If it's made up, it's speculation. If you don't know it's made up, it's rumour. One depends on the nature of the information, but one depends on your knowledge; the two are independent.

As a mature adult

I don't remember ever claiming to be a mature adult.

rather than simply outright accusing pretty much any and all rumor sources as being liars

I'm not sure how you got that out of "lol so much for quake cannons and volcano cannons."

If you want to get all bent out of shape over a statement somebody's actually made, I'll make this one now: I don't believe anything of value would be lost if we were never subjected to another rumour again. I don't mean speculation, or secretly false stuff, I mean all of it.

Take Bigred. I've never had the pleasure in real life, though I heard he was at the LVO, but by all accounts from the people I know who've met him he's a cool guy. He runs BOLS so the community has a place to talk about stuff like this, and he puts up rumor compilations so that people have easier access to said rumors. He's also constantly mocked and ridiculed within certain circles because he has the gall to forward rumors and let people decide for themselves whether or not to believe in said rumors. It's all-around childish behavior. Maybe you find it acceptable, but I do not. If you're defending that behavior, then we've got a problem.

I can think of much better reasons to ridicule him, like splitting up a photograph of an upcoming datasheet to make one news article about the looks and one about the rules, or lifting wiki pages and forum posts to make front page articles, or forgetting he has a Gamewire, or continually starting article titles with "WOW!" and "BOOM!" If it wasn't for the comments I'd just put the entire front page on LeechBlock and forget about it forever (only to be repeatedly reminded when "bolsadmin" clutters up the New Posts with posts that are links to front page articles).

Despite what some people seem to think, yes, GW does change their rules over the course of production. In our local gaming community there's a guy who worked as a game designer for various tabletop gaming companies, and he actually got his hands on an early playtest copy of the current CSM codex from GW. I saw it, and I saw it before the CSM book came out. Same artwork, same stories and fluff, same everything, except the rules were fairly different. For one, Veterans of the Long War granted Preferred Enemy. That's not in the current codex now. Is it really that difficult to grasp that this guy, who knows for a fact that VotLW grants PE in GW's current playtest rules, might not actually be a liar when the final codex comes out and VotLW is different? Apparently it is.

I point-blank refuse to believe that the rules-writers looked at any of the weapons on the new sprue and initially wrote quake cannon stats for them.

[Bigred]

New Imperial Knights

[Mr Mystery]

So looking forward to lobbing Tanks at people

And possibly grabbing a Hive a Tyrant by the tail and using it as a flail

[Bigred]

via [URL="http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/305781-rumours-cult-mechanicus-knights-knight-codex-leak-pg-52/?p=4032876"]Atia on Bolter & Chainsword [/URL]5-6-2015

Knights Formations & Detachments

DETACHMENTS

Household Detachment

3 Lords of War - Compulsory
2 Lords of War - Optional

Command Benefits
Knight Commander: If Primary Detachment, may reroll Warlord Trait, Warlord rerolls misses in a challenge.
Lord Baron: If Primary Detachment, Warlord may select 1 Heirloom, and is +1 WS, +1 BS
All Units are Objective Secured

Oathsworn Detachment

1 Lords of War - Compulsory
2 Lords of War - Optional

Command Benefits
None

FORMATIONS

Skyreaper Lance
3 Knights (all with Twin Icarus autocannon carapace mounts)

Skyreapers: vs enemy flyers: reroll failed penetration rolls, may reroll glances, may reroll failed to-wound rolls vs FMCs

Gallant Lance
3 Knights Gallant

Crusader, Rage, Reroll failed charge distance

Tripartite Lance
1 Knights Gallant
1 Knights Warden
1 Knights Crusader

Withering Fire: Formation members reduce enemy cover saves by -1 till Formation Knight Warden is destroyed.
Wrathful Onslaught: Formation members inflict D3 Hammer of Wrath hits till Formation Knight Gallant is destroyed.
Precision Bombardment: Formation members blast weapons are twin-linked till Formation Knight Crusader is destroyed.

Baronial Court
3-5 Knights

Ionic Sheildwall: +1 Ion Shield save if it is in the front arc, and within 6" of another Baronial Court Knight.
Knight Commander: If Primary Detachment, may reroll Warlord Trait, Warlord rerolls misses in a challenge.
Knightly Vassals: Baron and all formation menbers with 12" may overwatch and counter-attack.
Lord Baron: If Primary Detachment, Warlord may select 1 Heirloom, and is +1 WS, +1 BS

Exalted Court
3-5 Knights

Council of Lords: Each member may select a single Heirloom.
Knight Commander: If Primary Detachment, may reroll Warlord Trait, Warlord rerolls misses in a challenge.

[Tzeentch's Dark Agent]

Can I now finally make Liberty Prime from Fallout 3?