Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just as a heads up, there's very little point to grabbing this book now. You cannot run it as a primary detachment and gained objective secured troops anymore, so it's an allied slot at best, still to be used for cheap Servo Skull/Grenade Caddies.

Really wish I could request my money back because that's a significant change to the book.

And for some reason, Inquisition still has access to the old Chimeras.

So there yah go, caveat emptor. They take their time updating digital release and "fix" them by removing options instead of bringing them in-line with new rules.

You couldn't anyway , as the Inq detachment had no command benefit, and command benefits are what CAN give you objective secured

 TheKbob wrote:
Just as a heads up, there's very little point to grabbing this book now. You cannot run it as a primary detachment and gained objective secured troops anymore, so it's an allied slot at best, still to be used for cheap Servo Skull/Grenade Caddies.

Really wish I could request my money back because that's a significant change to the book.

And for some reason, Inquisition still has access to the old Chimeras.

So there yah go, caveat emptor. They take their time updating digital release and "fix" them by removing options instead of bringing them in-line with new rules.

Inq detachments in 7e never had Objective Secured. Objective Secured is specific to the Combined Arms Detachment. The Inq Detachment is not, nor has ever been, a CAD. Lord of Formosa was redundant since ALL units score now, and you actually GAINED a Command Benefit. It's not much, but you can re-roll your Warlord Trait.

I don't know what you mean about the "old Chimeras".

Don't get me wrong. I am in NO WAY defending GW issuing this turd of a Codex, but the sky is not falling with it...it had no sky to begin with.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
You couldn't anyway , as the Inq detachment had no command benefit, and command benefits are what CAN give you objective secured

You had Lord of Formosa previously which would allow for Objective Secured, or how most people interpreted the book to work, much like the Grey Knights book.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lynkon_Lawg wrote:


Inq detachments in 7e never had Objective Secured. Objective Secured is specific to the Combined Arms Detachment. The Inq Detachment is not, nor has ever been, a CAD. Lord of Formosa was redundant since ALL units score now, and you actually GAINED a Command Benefit. It's not much, but you can re-roll your Warlord Trait.

I don't know what you mean about the "old Chimeras".

Don't get me wrong. I am in NO WAY defending GW issuing this turd of a Codex, but the sky is not falling with it...it had no sky to begin with.

See above.

Most assumed that the scoring Coteaz provided was Objective Secured. Otherwise, this is another case of a book labeled "Codex" which just doesn't function properly, thus watering down such title. And they still have the old 55pt, five fire point Chimeras versus the new ones in the IG books. So that's pretty nuts (they are better in Codex Inquisition).

I think 7E is pretty dumb overall, but to change fundamentally how someone might have played this actual codex is pretty piss-taking.

There is a difference.

GK Coteaz makes Henchmen Troops, meaning they will (potentially) have OS.

Inq Coteaz simply makes Henchmen scoring units (which in 7th they are without Lord of Formosa).
Long story short Lord of Formosa in Inq does nothing, so may as well remove it.

 Happyjew wrote:
There is a difference.

GK Coteaz makes Henchmen Troops, meaning they will (potentially) have OS.

Inq Coteaz simply makes Henchmen scoring units (which in 7th they are without Lord of Formosa).
Long story short Lord of Formosa in Inq does nothing, so may as well remove it.

It could have been Objective Secured, thus making it a working, standalone book as Codex implies. Otherwise, it should have been best labelled a supplement, which it is not.

Pretty sure Lord never gave objective secured.

Its a codex with its particular formation/composition for their main det, they most certainly got objective secured.

I would have assumed that Lord of Formosa worked the same as Pedro Kantor's Hold the Line rule. There was no FAQ for it, but the precedent was there. Now I'm a little glad I haven't updated my Codex: =][=.

I don't really see the issue here. Not getting "objective secured" FAQed into the codex doesn't prevent the codex from working (like the auto-lose problem with the LOTD codex), it just makes it less powerful than certain players might have wanted.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Its a codex with its particular formation/composition for their main det, they most certainly got objective secured.

Nope. Objective Secured is a special rule for a Combined Arms Detachment.. The requirements for a Combined Arms Detachment are 1 HQ and 2 troops, and since C:I has no troops, you are unable to take them in a CAD. You take them in their own little special detachment, which has its own rules, none of which include Objective Secured.

The new Ork codex clarifies how detachments work simply by providing alternatives to the CAD and showing that holdover assumptions from the way FOC used to work aren't really valid anymore.

 TheKbob wrote:
Most assumed that the scoring Coteaz provided was Objective Secured. Otherwise, this is another case of a book labeled "Codex" which just doesn't function properly, thus watering down such title. And they still have the old 55pt, five fire point Chimeras versus the new ones in the IG books. So that's pretty nuts (they are better in Codex Inquisition).

I think 7E is pretty dumb overall, but to change fundamentally how someone might have played this actual codex is pretty piss-taking.

And once again I'm left with that sinking feeling that the person who made this change didn't really understand (or care, or notice) the implications of the change.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And once again I'm left with that sinking feeling that the person who made this change didn't really understand (or care, or notice) the implications of the change.

But there isn't a change. C:I never had "objective secured", it was purely wishful thinking from certain players.

 Bludbaff wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Its a codex with its particular formation/composition for their main det, they most certainly got objective secured.

Nope. Objective Secured is a special rule for a Combined Arms Detachment.. The requirements for a Combined Arms Detachment are 1 HQ and 2 troops, and since C:I has no troops, you are unable to take them in a CAD. You take them in their own little special detachment, which has its own rules, none of which include Objective Secured.

The new Ork codex clarifies how detachments work simply by providing alternatives to the CAD and showing that holdover assumptions from the way FOC used to work aren't really valid anymore.

Nope, codex overrides BRB, regardless of its age. The main detachment for the inquisition troops is described on the codex, not on the BRB.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Nope, codex overrides BRB, regardless of its age. The main detachment for the inquisition troops is described on the codex, not on the BRB.

Yes, codex overrules BRB, and the codex presents a special C:I detachment which does not include "objective secured" for any of its units.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 Bludbaff wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Its a codex with its particular formation/composition for their main det, they most certainly got objective secured.

Nope. Objective Secured is a special rule for a Combined Arms Detachment.. The requirements for a Combined Arms Detachment are 1 HQ and 2 troops, and since C:I has no troops, you are unable to take them in a CAD. You take them in their own little special detachment, which has its own rules, none of which include Objective Secured.

The new Ork codex clarifies how detachments work simply by providing alternatives to the CAD and showing that holdover assumptions from the way FOC used to work aren't really valid anymore.

Nope, codex overrides BRB, regardless of its age. The main detachment for the inquisition troops is described on the codex, not on the BRB.

- Codex: Inquisition has only two types of battlefield roles - HQ and Elite. As per the old wording, Elites were scoring (not troops) if Inquisition was selected as the Primary Detachment.
- 7th edition makes all units scoring regardless of role.
- 7th edition grants the "Objective Secured" rule to troop units in Combined Arms detachments.
- Inquisitorial detachments are not CADs
- Inquisitorial henchmen are not troops.

Ergo, Inquisitorial henchmen from Codex: Inquisition don't get Objective Secured, even with Lord of Formosa. To me, this was crystal clear even before the update.

Let me get this straight?
The part that got made redundant due to all scoring 7th (about time) got taken away and the parts that make it auto-include (servo-skulls/ psychic) are still there?

What's the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides as the post above me stated.. And I've had to finish up an uninjoyable game or two with a straight face rather than argue with childre... You were playing the rules wrong to begin with..

 Inquisitor Bob wrote:
Let me get this straight?
The part that got made redundant due to all scoring 7th (about time) got taken away and the parts that make it auto-include (servo-skulls/ psychic) are still there?

What's the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides as the post above me stated.. And I've had to finish up an uninjoyable game or two with a straight face rather than argue with childre... You were playing the rules wrong to begin with..

I think the point of the statement is that the elites basically became your troops but now... well they don't. The closest equivalent towards 6th editions scoring is objective secured so I suppose the hope was that the logical extension of being scoring would lead to them gaining objective secured. Instead, it is no more. Frankly I would have liked it solely to play skirmish sized games somewhat akin to Inquisitor against enemy forces. Oh well.

 Inquisitor Bob wrote:
Let me get this straight?
The part that got made redundant due to all scoring 7th (about time) got taken away and the parts that make it auto-include (servo-skulls/ psychic) are still there?

What's the problem?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides as the post above me stated.. And I've had to finish up an uninjoyable game or two with a straight face rather than argue with childre... You were playing the rules wrong to begin with..

Because your tone comes off as a mature and reasonable person.

The idea that Coteaz makes warbands scoring, per 6E, was a main reason to take the codex and a means of making the army work since it was legal to be fielded with itself. Since Codex Grey Knights in 7E still makes warbands Objective Secured, the follow on logic is that the book which featured the exact same dude would also do so such that people already playing said army would be the same benefits.

Instead, they crapped all over said people after investing their money on the book in the previous edition. This new FOC thing is already pretty asinine, but to sit here and say that army you made can't be played like it was before due to an $85 rule change is asinine. This does not happen in other games without significant forewarning and discussion from the game companies.

Excuse me for airing legitimate beef on a subject matter that got FAQ'd in an incredibly poor manner. Also, let the rules dispute begin about bringing two Coteaz. They are no longer identical, thus per the rules, you can field both of them.

Some consistency would be much appreciated.

Pedro Kantor's "Hold the Line" rule uses the exact same wording for the modification. "scoring" So why didn't he lose that rule as it is now redundant in 7th?

Why is one OS and the other isn't?

 Eldarain wrote:
Some consistency would be much appreciated.

Pedro Kantor's "Hold the Line" rule uses the exact same wording for the modification. "scoring" So why didn't he lose that rule as it is now redundant in 7th?

Why is one OS and the other isn't?

Probably the same reason why they removed FAQ edits such as making Abaddon immune to becoming a DP or a CSpawn and the sorts.

 TheKbob wrote:
The idea that Coteaz makes warbands scoring, per 6E, was a main reason to take the codex and a means of making the army work since it was legal to be fielded with itself.

No it wasn't, since the GK codex gives you the same Coteaz + warbands army but with more options. The only reason to buy C:I was to add allied inquisitors to your existing army, the option to take them as a primary detachment only exists so you can use your C:I rules/models without buying a second codex if you already have those allies and want to try a pure inquisition army.

Since Codex Grey Knights in 7E still makes warbands Objective Secured, the follow on logic is that the book which featured the exact same dude would also do so such that people already playing said army would be the same benefits.

Except the GK codex doesn't make them "objective secured", it makes them troops. They can then get the benefit of the "objective secured" as long as they are taken as part of a combined arms detachment in a battle-forged army.

And no, I wouldn't expect Coteaz to work the same way because he never worked the same way in both books. C:I made warbands scoring elite units, GK made them troops.

This new FOC thing is already pretty asinine, but to sit here and say that army you made can't be played like it was before due to an $85 rule change is asinine.

Except absolutely nothing has changed. You didn't have "objective secured" when C:I was published, you didn't have it when 7th edition was released, and you don't have it now. Not getting errata to add a powerful new rule that you wanted to have is not the same thing as not being able to play your army.

A-men!

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
The idea that Coteaz makes warbands scoring, per 6E, was a main reason to take the codex and a means of making the army work since it was legal to be fielded with itself.

No it wasn't, since the GK codex gives you the same Coteaz + warbands army but with more options. The only reason to buy C:I was to add allied inquisitors to your existing army, the option to take them as a primary detachment only exists so you can use your C:I rules/models without buying a second codex if you already have those allies and want to try a pure inquisition army.

Since Codex Grey Knights in 7E still makes warbands Objective Secured, the follow on logic is that the book which featured the exact same dude would also do so such that people already playing said army would be the same benefits.

Except the GK codex doesn't make them "objective secured", it makes them troops. They can then get the benefit of the "objective secured" as long as they are taken as part of a combined arms detachment in a battle-forged army.

And no, I wouldn't expect Coteaz to work the same way because he never worked the same way in both books. C:I made warbands scoring elite units, GK made them troops.

This new FOC thing is already pretty asinine, but to sit here and say that army you made can't be played like it was before due to an $85 rule change is asinine.

Except absolutely nothing has changed. You didn't have "objective secured" when C:I was published, you didn't have it when 7th edition was released, and you don't have it now. Not getting errata to add a powerful new rule that you wanted to have is not the same thing as not being able to play your army.

Can I have some hairs for you to split further? We usually see eye to eye, but not on this one. Before, you had scoring units in 6E for this codex which was designed to be taken alone; hence the title codex and given the specific ability to ally with itself.

The scoring in 7E is objective secured, period. We know "everything else is scoring" but what matters is OS. By removing what is the ability of the same guy in one book versus another, when that's the intent of how it was played 6E, is asinine and reduces the value of the product from my view.

And this whole CAD thing continue to be incredibly dumb, IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eldarain wrote:
Some consistency would be much appreciated.

Pedro Kantor's "Hold the Line" rule uses the exact same wording for the modification. "scoring" So why didn't he lose that rule as it is now redundant in 7th?

Why is one OS and the other isn't?

PS: Exactly this. Given that they even tweaked the points for the Valkyrie, but left the Chimera the same, shows a half-hearted "fix" and good way to screw over an already mediocre book.

 TheKbob wrote:
Can I have some hairs for you to split further? We usually see eye to eye, but not on this one. Before, you had scoring units in 6E for this codex which was designed to be taken alone; hence the title codex and given the specific ability to ally with itself.

Now you have scoring in 7th. Nothing has changed.

And, again, the codex was not designed to be taken alone because if you're building a pure inquisition army there is absolutely no reason to buy C:I instead of the GK codex. The only reason you're allowed to take a pure C:I army is that GW decided that they might as well give you an option to use your allies as a full army occasionally without having to buy a whole new codex. But I don't think GW ever expected pure C:I armies to be more than a tiny, tiny minority compared to allied C:I detachments.

The scoring in 7E is objective secured, period. We know "everything else is scoring" but what matters is OS.

Except that's not what scoring in 7th is. Unbound armies don't have "objective secured" at all, plenty of objectives are claimed by non-troops units, etc. The "objective secured" rule is nothing more than a bonus given to combined arms detachments in a battle-forged army.

By removing what is the ability of the same guy in one book versus another, when that's the intent of how it was played 6E, is asinine and reduces the value of the product from my view.

First of all, I disagree with you about the "intent" in 6th. The intent is to make certain units scoring. They are scoring in 7th. No intent has been lost. They were not intended to be "objective secured" in 6th because no such rule existed.

Second, nothing has been removed. Not getting a powerful new rule that you thought you were entitled to have is not the same thing as losing something. GK Coteaz and C:I Coteaz were two different characters from the moment C:I was published, there was no reason to expect that 7th would change the C:I version to match the GK one.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
Can I have some hairs for you to split further? We usually see eye to eye, but not on this one. Before, you had scoring units in 6E for this codex which was designed to be taken alone; hence the title codex and given the specific ability to ally with itself.

Now you have scoring in 7th. Nothing has changed.

And, again, the codex was not designed to be taken alone because if you're building a pure inquisition army there is absolutely no reason to buy C:I instead of the GK codex. The only reason you're allowed to take a pure C:I army is that GW decided that they might as well give you an option to use your allies as a full army occasionally without having to buy a whole new codex. But I don't think GW ever expected pure C:I armies to be more than a tiny, tiny minority compared to allied C:I detachments.

The scoring in 7E is objective secured, period. We know "everything else is scoring" but what matters is OS.

Except that's not what scoring in 7th is. Unbound armies don't have "objective secured" at all, plenty of objectives are claimed by non-troops units, etc. The "objective secured" rule is nothing more than a bonus given to combined arms detachments in a battle-forged army.

By removing what is the ability of the same guy in one book versus another, when that's the intent of how it was played 6E, is asinine and reduces the value of the product from my view.

First of all, I disagree with you about the "intent" in 6th. The intent is to make certain units scoring. They are scoring in 7th. No intent has been lost. They were not intended to be "objective secured" in 6th because no such rule existed.

Second, nothing has been removed. Not getting a powerful new rule that you thought you were entitled to have is not the same thing as losing something. GK Coteaz and C:I Coteaz were two different characters from the moment C:I was published, there was no reason to expect that 7th would change the C:I version to match the GK one.

I do not care for this fashion of writing, meaning splitting posts, and I won't discuss this topic with you any longer. We have disagreeing opinions. I bought the book and had armies based around the concept. They are now gone, but if I still had them, I'd be doubly upset over the matter.

 TheKbob wrote:
I bought the book and had armies based around the concept. They are now gone, but if I still had them, I'd be doubly upset over the matter.

And you would not be justified in being upset because you didn't lose anything. This isn't some kind of LOTD-style screwup where the army is literally unplayable, you just didn't get a rule change that would make your army more powerful. And this thread completely loses sight of that fact.

Codex: Inquisition is pretty amazing when you consider it a Supplement to Faction: Armies of the Imperium. It can give everything from cheap Plasma to scary CC to Heavy Armour and Fliers to armies that may not have those options available.

 Peregrine wrote:

 TheKbob wrote:
I bought the book and had armies based around the concept. They are now gone, but if I still had them, I'd be doubly upset over the matter.

And you would not be justified in being upset because you didn't lose anything. This isn't some kind of LOTD-style screwup where the army is literally unplayable, you just didn't get a rule change that would make your army more powerful. And this thread completely loses sight of that fact.

Unless you based your army on that fact and that, from my best understanding of 7E, Objective Secured is kind of a good thing. What's the difference between a scoring Land Raider and an Objective Secured Land Raider? A great deal. Billing a book a Codex, more so one that operated well by itself minus the lack of good AA, and turning it into now a supplement is a pile of crap. That's the fact you're losing.

Nothing was turned into anything. No matter how much you wish that scoring and Objective Secured mean the same thing, there is no way you can twist the rules to support that interpretation. Here are the facts:

1. A Combined Arms detachment consists of 1 HQ, 2 Troops, and the option to take 1 more HQ, 4 more Troops, 3 Elites, 3 FA, 3 HS.
2. An Allied Detachment consists of 1 HQ, 1 Troops, and the option to take 1 more Troops, 1 Elite, 1 FA, 1 HS.
3. The Combined Arms Detachment and the Allied Detachment each grant the Objective Secured rule to Troops in the detachment.
4. There are no other ways listed for a unit to gain the Objective Secured rule.

Still with me?

5. Codex: Inquisition contains no units that are a Troops choice.
6. Codex: Inquisition contains no way to make a unit count as a Troops choice.
7. It is impossible to take C:I in a Combined Arms or Allied Detachment, as it has no Troops choices.
8. Thus, it is impossible for Codex: Inquisition units to ever benefit from Objective Secured.

If you have any problems following the above logic, please let me know and I'll go into further detail.