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.

I have a number of issues with the new CIA Codex so am going to send GW a polite email expressing my concerns, querries etc.

It may not achieve anything but it can't hurt.

These include rules and general queries like:

why The Tech Priest's "Awaken the machine" only effects Astra Militarium vehicles not say its own Factions! Should be any friendly vehicles same as Blessings of the Omnissiah
If everything is it own faction how does this work with transports that are of different Factions - especially in relation to Acolytes and the Imperial Navy section and the Henchman warband
Why no Vendetta's in the IN Section (referenced in the specifc fluff for it)
Why is the Adepta Sororitas Detachment so dire in comparison to others granted to other units - even in the same codex. This and the next few notes is very disapointing given the boosts other forces receive.
removal of the Signature Sisters character (also a massive blow to the Serpahim Squad)
Moving the Sororitas Command Squad to Elite means that the already poor Celestian squad even worse
Why no special formation for the actual Sisters!
Still no invuln save for Inquisitors!!
Still no unique Ordo Xenos character since Valeria was erased - there are various Inquistor models and fluff chacracters - combine one!
Can an Acolyte unit start inside a different factions transport if its chooses it as a Dedicated Transport.
Chambers Militant - are they part of the warband or something else

anything else I have missed?

thanks

The Inquisitorial formation, does it mean models or units when it says 0-1 Crusaders, arco, deathcult.
When you add a chamber militant (GK, SoB, DW) to this formation does it become part of the unit or is it a separate unit.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
The Inquisitorial formation, does it mean models or units when it says 0-1 Crusaders, arco, deathcult.
When you add a chamber militant (GK, SoB, DW) to this formation does it become part of the unit or is it a separate unit.

If it is separate unit then what exactly is the point of adding the DW since they would get no benefits at all? Why not just take them as their own Detachment?

Do duplicate warlord traits generated by taking multiple inquisition formations stack? If I manage to roll 6 times on Strategic and get "divide to conquer" every time does that mean my opponents reserve rolls are at a -6 and therefore never come on? (Sorry if this has already been answered)

The Acolytes can take a Land raider as a transport, but the example in the book points to the grey knights section. For Vehicle upgrades do you go by the grey knight upgrades, the Inquisition upgrades or neither? I Would suspect Inquisition but I cant find anything in the codex that explicitly says you can "take items from the Inquisition Vehicle Equipment list" like the Chimera does.

Removal of Servo Skulls.
Needle pistol dropping from ap2 to ap6

A clear statement on if the inquisition and sororitas codexes are still legal. I assume so, but it's not 100% clear.

- Why does the Tome of Vethric give Monster Hunters when fighting Genestealer Cults? The Codex contains zero Monstrous Creatures. Why "Tank Hunters" versus Necrons? These are very odd design decisions.
- How do DTs work for the Inquisitorial Warband Chamber Militant selections? Can i take a DT for the Acolyte mob and another for the Chamber Militant?

Is Canoness Veridyan intended to be unique?

As of now, I can take as many of her as I have HQ slots for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Are jokaero supposed to be able to join other units? As of now, they can only do so if they are in the meta formation.

I have 2 mainly

1. what the heck is the point of the Aeronautica if no one can ride in them? seriously a single line allowing all Imperials ro ride in them would have been sufficient.

2. Does this book now make the Enginseer an HQ choice for a normal cult mechanicus army?

Bowie wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
The Inquisitorial formation, does it mean models or units when it says 0-1 Crusaders, arco, deathcult.
When you add a chamber militant (GK, SoB, DW) to this formation does it become part of the unit or is it a separate unit.

If it is separate unit then what exactly is the point of adding the DW since they would get no benefits at all? Why not just take them as their own Detachment?

Do duplicate warlord traits generated by taking multiple inquisition formations stack? If I manage to roll 6 times on Strategic and get "divide to conquer" every time does that mean my opponents reserve rolls are at a -6 and therefore never come on? (Sorry if this has already been answered)

The Acolytes can take a Land raider as a transport, but the example in the book points to the grey knights section. For Vehicle upgrades do you go by the grey knight upgrades, the Inquisition upgrades or neither? I Would suspect Inquisition but I cant find anything in the codex that explicitly says you can "take items from the Inquisition Vehicle Equipment list" like the Chimera does.

The Chamber Militant unit does not become part of the Mega Unit that the Warband forms. Only, and only, the units with the small 1 in the warband requirement profiles join the unit of Acolytes. Chamber Militant rule simply allows you t bring that specified squad and what they can get you, which is cool specifically for the Ordos Hereticus since it is the only way to get a single Battle Sister squad.

ShaneMarsh wrote:

The Chamber Militant unit does not become part of the Mega Unit that the Warband forms. Only, and only, the units with the small 1 in the warband requirement profiles join the unit of Acolytes. Chamber Militant rule simply allows you t bring that specified squad and what they can get you, which is cool specifically for the Ordos Hereticus since it is the only way to get a single Battle Sister squad.

That is RAW. But also makes the Chamber Militant kinda pointless, and turns the Warband formation into a less flexible version of the old henchmen unit without much of a point. It *feels* like there would be something more than. That there would be a point to it beyond removing flexibility. If the Chamber Militant could join as part of the unit that would give it a purpose, and a vision that it is otherwise lacking,

So it seems like a fair question to ask.

If the purpose of the Inquisition update in this book really was to add restrictions, take away options and flexibility, GW could come out and say as much, and these sorts of questions would be answered. If there was some other purpose, then there are alot of things we aren't really understanding.

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
The Inquisitorial formation, does it mean models or units when it says 0-1 Crusaders, arco, deathcult.
When you add a chamber militant (GK, SoB, DW) to this formation does it become part of the unit or is it a separate unit.

I'm not so certain on the second one, but for the first one:
The units in the book are referred to as 'Crusaders', 'Death Cult Assassins', etc, so saying that you can take '0-1 Crusaders' would RAW mean '0-1 sets of the unit called Crusaders'. Also, on a less RAW but more obviously RAI note: The picture above clearly has 2 Crusaders, 2 Assassins, and 3 Arco Flagellants. Now, admittedly, it's not out of the realm of possibility that they just have a completely inaccurate picture (And, also to be fair, there are no actual Acolyte models pictures, so that's at least one clear error,) but it seems really strange that they would omit something like that.

I can see the argument for the Chamber Militant not to be added, but I also agree that it'd be really, really dumb. For Deathwatch and Grey Knights, it's literally pointless unless you're just playing at a tournament that limits how many detachments you can take, and we all know that GW doesn't write its rules with homebrew rulesets in mind.
There are no perks for being in the formation, outside of simply being part of the unit. Grey Knights can already take single units of their Terminators, with a neat buff to boot, and Deathwatch can do the same, with a genuinely really useful buff - Sisters of Battle are the only outlier here, and if we're being honest, nobody wants to take a Sisters of Battle squad just for the tactical benefit of it. They're a model tax in their own CAD, why would they be better without any detachment bonuses?

Waaaghpower wrote:
The units in the book are referred to as 'Crusaders', 'Death Cult Assassins', etc, so saying that you can take '0-1 Crusaders' would RAW mean '0-1 sets of the unit called Crusaders'

+1. The plural is what does it for me - I think if it meant "0-1 dude" it'd say "0-1 Crusader", rather than use the plural. The Techpriest entry is "0-1 Techpriest Enginseer", so it's obvious you only get 1 Techpriest max.

Then again the Priest entry is "0-1 Ministorum Priests", plural, so it's still worth asking.

I would say adding the GK/SoB/DW adds them as their own squad to the Formation, not lumping them in with the Acolytes.

I feel that since they took the effort to include that note for the other members, like the Crusaders, Acros, Enginseers, they would have added the note as well if they intended it to be that way. Plus the fact it makes taking the squad basically useless seems sort of redundant

So if you had Corteaz, you would have Corteaz as a unit, the Warband made up of Acolytes etc as another unit, and then the Grey Knight squad as its own unit within the Formation.

You should include a little vial of all of the tears from all of the crying over this release.
They can put it in their tear vault with every other codex vial.
Good luck with your letter.

 usernamesareannoying wrote:
You should include a little vial of all of the tears from all of the crying over this release.
They can put it in their tear vault with every other codex vial.
Good luck with your letter.

What a useful constructive post - reported

I don't have the GK coded but the formation in the IA book is one troop, one fast attack and 1 heavy support. The only requirement is that they all must be from the GK faction. So theoretically you cold take troop/fast attack from the GK codex. So which units not in ia might benefit from this formation to add a small force of GKs?

The GK formation mandatory units are either-or; it's either 1 Troops OR 1 Fast Attack. You don't need both. Also, considering there's only one Troops and one FA choice in C:IA I think it's kinda obvious which units you need to use in this Formation.

 BBAP wrote:
The GK formation mandatory units are either-or; it's either 1 Troops OR 1 Fast Attack. You don't need both. Also, considering there's only one Troops and one FA choice in C:IA I think it's kinda obvious which units you need to use in this Formation.

Hmm thats another question - the formations don;t say that the units have to be from the CIA book just with the right Faction.

 generalchaos34 wrote:


2. Does this book now make the Enginseer an HQ choice for a normal cult mechanicus army?

oh that's a good one

RULE #1 - BE POLITE.

So if you've something to say that will go against RULE #1?

Best not to say it...

Would have been nice to get a rule allowing LotD to deploy on turn 1 besides "ask your opponent".

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
The Inquisitorial formation, does it mean models or units when it says 0-1 Crusaders, arco, deathcult.

This "Codex" is an absolute rules train-wreck.

1. I cannot believe that the Ecclesiarchy Battle Conclave is anything but a misprint. I mean, even the fluff paragraph above it contradicts a unit that size ... "Known as Battle Conclaves, these groups are necessarily small in size, numbering only a few personal protectors – anything larger would breach the prohibition of ‘men under arms’ as laid down in the Decree Passive." No matter how you slice it, 101 models is anything but "necessarily small in size."

2. The Faction rules are completely bungled. I suspect the authors made several assumptions about Factions that frankly are nowhere in their own rules (I know ... surprise, surprise.) The problem is, GW's usual "Just do the common sense thing" can't work here, because there are a TON of different "common sense" interpretations of how things should work.

I agree that the intention was to allow an Inquisitor to requisition a Dedicated Transport and, I dunno, USE IT from the start of the game. But since the rules (and FAQ) as written absolutely do not allow for it, what do you assume?

ANYTHING BOUGHT FOR A DETACHMENT OR FORMATION BECOMES THE FACTION OF THAT DETACHMENT?
Highly unlikely, since Detachments usually don't even HAVE a "Faction" of their own represented, just a restriction on what units can be a part of it. I can't find any precedent for Detachments or Formations that would even come close to matching this, but if that were true, then an Inquisition Henchmen Warband (hereafter referred to as IHW) could take a DW Veteran Squad, leave the Vets on the table, and load up in the Corvus out of the gate. Much as I'd love to give that a try, I'm 100% convinced that was NOT INTENDED.

BUYING UNITS (AND DEDICATED TRANSPORTS) FOR THE IHW MAKES THEM INQUISITION FACTION IN ADDITION TO THEIR ORIGINAL FACTION?
It "adds" Inquisition to the Units? In a way, it makes sense, since the blob then becomes Inquisition/Sororitas/Cult/Astra, depending on what you take. The Acolyte Unit could be Multi-Faction, depending on what you choose and use a Sororitas Rhino, I guess. Doesn't help the Valkyrie, Chimera, or even Land Raider, though.

BUYING UNITS (AND DEDICATED TRANSPORTS) FOR THE IHW MAKES THEM INQUISITION FACTION, PERIOD? FULL STOP?
This probably makes the most sense, but there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the rules to support it. Dedicated Transports get the Battlefield Role of what buys them, NOT the Faction. Quite the opposite, in fact, "A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army." It would mean that any of the Acolyte's Dedicated Transports would be legit, and the Inquisitor and his full Acolyte unit WOULD be able to use them from game start legally. But then, you have to wonder, would it be legitimate for a Death Cult unit purchased in the IHW to buy an Immolator (DT from THEIR Datasheet), and would that then make their DT a legal ride for the Inquisitor and the rest of the IHW to start in? Technically no, since the Inq and the Acolytes aren't part of the unit buying the transport but you can see how this gets confusing. Other than the last thing, I think this is PROBABLY how they were thinking things would work ... so, MAYBE INTENDED?

Oh, and even if you accept ANY of the above interpretations, the inclusion of the Aeronautica Imperialis makes NO sense at all. Unless it's only ever intended to pick stuff up after the game starts. If you're lucky. Turn 5 Grav Chute! That's a game changer.

It's epic fail on the part of the authors and the Rules team. The attempts to prevent transport shenanigans and the author's complete lack of understanding on Factions in 7th editions have made a serious quagmire here and it's not going away without an FAQ entry (and probably not even then, given how muddled GW often makes those.)

3. Detachment Spam. I know people are loving the idea of how these Detachments are now cheaper ways to spam things but boy did GW drop the ball here. Heck, people are citing this as the reason to buy the Codex. I'd really hoped there was SOMETHING in the book that kept you from spamming duplicates of some of these Detachments, but there's NOTHING. Even a GW article the other day showed a list using three of the individual Assassin Detachments, so it's pretty clear that they intended you to "use as many as you want!" When TOs and gaming groups start seeing six Inquisitors in every army for 7 free Warlord Traits or NDK spam lists they might start rethinking the merit of that. But hey, as it's written there are NO restrictions whatsoever. So, go nuts, I guess.

3a. Oh, since we're going to see Inquisitor spam for freebie Warlord traits ... do they give up a Victory Point at least if you kill them? That would at least be SOMETHING. The rules really seem to say otherwise, though. He's expressly referred to as "not your Warlord" except for the note that "For the purposes of this Warlord Trait, this Inquisitor is considered to be your Warlord." Do Warlord traits stack or do you re-roll duplicates? (I'd say, NO to both of those, but people are asking.)

4. Codex Invalidation? I know they've flip-flopped on this already, and I BELIEVE that the old eDexes are still valid. But even that causes a host of potential issues. If both sources are valid, are units from either source valid for either book? Can I take the new Legion of the Damned Detachment but use their datasheet entry in the eDex and get my Plasma Cannons back? Can I field Celestine in the new C:IA Formation? Can I field Forgeworld Inquisitors in the IHW formation? Formations usually say, "Only the Units listed to the right may be used" to prevent using "out of context" stuff, but this one doesn't say much ... it does have page numbers for the Units, does that mean I can only take the ones from C:IA? And frankly, why do you include 95% of an army's list, leaving out only a few odd things, if you have no intention of making it the current valid codex? I agree they weren't replacing Deathwatch, Grey Knights, or Cult Mechanicus, that's obvious, but the eDexes were duplicated ALMOST ENTIRELY ... another ridiculous contradiction.

That's all I can think of for now. If I seem particularly vexed and long-winded about this it's because I have a particular grudge against LAZY RULES AUTHORS who don't even bother to think about things affect the game system they're writing for. And yeah, I know the answer is, "I shouldn't be playing 40k."

Considering that these questions could create some things that could completely ruin games or change choices of what models to buy or paint, I think I'm a bit justified in my ire.
</rantoff>

 dracpanzer wrote:
Would have been nice to get a rule allowing LotD to deploy on turn 1 besides "ask your opponent".

Whilst I fully agree, I can't see anyone disagreeing with it. If they were unhappy about a full army deepstriking on top of them, I'll offer to deploy half the army normally. If they won't compromise, they probably aren't someone I was going to have an enjoyable game with anyway.

I'll still be using the lotd codex though. I'm not remodelling my heavy weapons and sgts weapons just because they want to limit the options to the existing range, rather than add to it.

Can the Independent Characters in an Inquisitiorial Henchmen Warband, specifically the Astropath and Priest, leave the unit during the first turn? Page 131 says they must "form a single unit" but does not say "for the entire game" like other formations do (see Cohort Cybernetica et al) And the BRB section on Independent Character says "can leave a unit during the Movement phase."

 axisofentropy wrote:
Can the Independent Characters in an Inquisitiorial Henchmen Warband, specifically the Astropath and Priest, leave the unit during the first turn? Page 131 says they must "form a single unit" but does not say "for the entire game" like other formations do (see Cohort Cybernetica et al) And the BRB section on Independent Character says "can leave a unit during the Movement phase."

I would say yes, but also why would you? Could be some shenanigans involving unit swapping turn 1, but it also has the risk of generating a free extra VP for your opponent should they take a potshot at your lonely Astropath

Just going to leave this here. It's in the "choosing your army" section of the rule book.

 axisofentropy wrote:
Can the Independent Characters in an Inquisitiorial Henchmen Warband, specifically the Astropath and Priest, leave the unit during the first turn? Page 131 says they must "form a single unit" but does not say "for the entire game" like other formations do (see Cohort Cybernetica et al) And the BRB section on Independent Character says "can leave a unit during the Movement phase."

Is this a change from the eDex wherein priests are lower-case 'characters' and not Independent Characters? Because if that's the case I don't see why they couldn't leave. But you wouldn't be able to join a different unit in the same phase.

 Kavish wrote:
Just going to leave this here. It's in the "choosing your army" section of the rule book.

INTERESTING. It's in my print copy but not in my eCopy. Not sure if it's in my mini-copy. Must have been added at some point. I stand corrected. It does, at least give us something to work with. But I'm still not sure it fixes the problem. Consider this:

- Acolytes + Death Cult Assassin ... unit becomes multi-faction Inquisition/Adepta Sororitas
- Acolytes purchase Sororitas Rhino, Rhino becomes Inq/AS ... Acolyte and DCA unit can board.
- BUT, Inquisitor is still Inquisition ONLY, and I'm pretty sure the FAQ would prevent him starting on board

It's kinda unprecedented for a Formation to draw from multiple factions and then dump them into the same unit, so maybe they meant for DCA to become Inquisition in the same fashion as a Dedicated Transport. Seems like somebody should have mentioned that. Or maybe it doesn't matter anyway ... everything has Inq faction, so they could all deploy on board I guess. Gah, curse this Codex AND the FAQ that confuses it.

It also still means nobody is starting deployed on the Imperial Navy Section.*

*Except for the Officer of the Fleet, of course.

EDIT: Never mind. I think this oversight explains the Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband and lets the Unit start on board their Dedicated Transports. Mea Culpa. Still think this Codex is bungled, though.

If you really want to blow your mind by a dedicated immolators for the dca. It was not bought the acolytes so therefore only has sisters faction when bought but then the whole thing gets brought into the inq warband as a giant unit. Who can ride it?

Of course they could just rule it that dca/acolytes whatever have to ride in their own transports but that the unit may be split up across them as long as all models fit in their respective vehicles and then the vehicles become convoys and have to maintain coherency.

 JamesY wrote:

 dracpanzer wrote:
Would have been nice to get a rule allowing LotD to deploy on turn 1 besides "ask your opponent".

Whilst I fully agree, I can't see anyone disagreeing with it. If they were unhappy about a full army deepstriking on top of them, I'll offer to deploy half the army normally. If they won't compromise, they probably aren't someone I was going to have an enjoyable game with anyway.

I'll still be using the lotd codex though. I'm not remodelling my heavy weapons and sgts weapons just because they want to limit the options to the existing range, rather than add to it.

Sadly, since the Digi-dex I haven't found a single TO willing to allow even so much as an old demonic assault style army split or even just rolling for reserves on turn 1. First turn vanguard vets and skyhammer they are cool with though.