pretre wrote: It is crazy. Wrong. You can't put battle brothers in transports.
Even independant characters that joined a embarked unit ?
That is a hotly debated topic, has been for a while.
I already play a henchman army mixed with IG. There is a singular trugh about inquisitoral stormtroopers I can testify about. Henchmen are way better than storm troopers. Embrace the henchmen and don't try to copy storm trooperes.
3 plasma guns 9 bolter henchmen=2 points more than a naked storm trooper squad.
3 plasma guns 8 bolters and 1 damn dirty ape=2 points more than a 5 man storm trooper squad with 2 plasma guns
I already play a henchman army mixed with IG. There is a singular trugh about inquisitoral stormtroopers I can testify about. Henchmen are way better than storm troopers. Embrace the henchmen and don't try to copy storm trooperes.
3 plasma guns 9 bolter henchmen=2 points more than a naked storm trooper squad.
3 plasma guns 8 bolters and 1 damn dirty ape=2 points more than a 5 man storm trooper squad with 2 plasma guns
This is true, those are good builds. It is just stupid to have options that are practically unusable because they're priced so absurdly. And it is really frustrating that they just copy-pasted those same broken prices from GK book. To do it one time can be a mistake, to do it again is just idiocy. No one in their right mind can think that a guardsman with a bolter and a power armour should cost more than a marine.
While I'm at it 3 plasma guns and 2 storm bolters inside a Chinera with 5 fire points>3 naked henchmen in a razorback.
A single banisher added to a Chimera has a 24" threat range for placing a squad in old school null zone. (6" range+12" move + 6" flat out) Any deamons within 6" of the Chimera reroll successful invo saves.
But is it better than two naked Henchmen Razorback squads?
Mostly kidding. It depends on what you're looking for.
2 psybacks average 5.333 hits per turn while the multi laser only averages 1.5. It's a big early game advantage for the psybacks until the plasma guns get to start opening up.
Going to post my 1,750 point list I've been playing recently. The big change is the units are now battle brothers so I might shave some points to buy a more expensive IGHS that can make use of prescience..
1 Jokaero 3 mm servitors, 2 plasmaguns, 2 boltguns in a Chimera
4 psykers, 3 plasmaguns, 1 bolter, in a Chimera with a searchlight
4 psykers, 3 plasmaguns, 1 bolter,in a Chimera with a searchlight
4 psykers, 3 plasmaguns, 1 bolter, in a Chimera
1 Jokaero 3 plasmaguns, 3 storm bolters and 5 boltguns on foot
1 Jokaero 3 plasmaguns 2 storm bolters and 6 boltguns on foot.
IG allies
CCS with 4 meltas in a Chimera(searchlight free)
PCS with 4 flamers in a Chimera (searchlight free)
Infantry squad with AC and melta
Infantry squad with AC and melta
Infantry squad a melta
1 Vendetta
1 Griffon
Aegis Wall with a quad gun
Marbo
Yep I can drop the platoon infantry squads down to 2 squads with 1 AC to upgrade the Griffon to a Manticore and have 5 points left over.
Troike wrote: Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?
Cover Art by Marek Okon, and they credit play testers. Maybe this is the first codex that's strictly GW: DE authored?
And who would DE be? Maybe this will be a new trend where they dont list the authors anymore or maybe more than one person worked on the codex like the Codex Eldar. They should still list the names imo.
Troike wrote: Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?
Cover Art by Marek Okon, and they credit play testers. Maybe this is the first codex that's strictly GW: DE authored?
And who would DE be? Maybe this will be a new trend where they dont list the authors anymore or maybe more than one person worked on the codex like the Codex Eldar. They should still list the names imo.
Games Workshop Digital Editons, the folks who actually make and maintain the digital codexes and run the Facebook page.
shadowseercB wrote: I know what you meant but those people have names, they need to name names!!!!!
With all the mudslinging I see directed at GW you'd think they weren't people because they sure aren't treated like they are a lot of the time. :/
No names where given for whatever reason. If anything that tells me it might not be a main studio product and it might be an experiment. If so then the actual folks who wrote it likely didn't get a lot of freedom in what they were doing.
Ah ha! I'm a big fan of this configuration as well.
Do the 4 psykers cast Psychic Barrage out of just 1 Firepoint from the Chimera ?
Also, an additional question:
in my GK codex, under Psychic Barrage, it states:
"The strength of the attach increases by 1 for each additional Psyker in the unit beyond the first"
"The AP of the attack improves by 1 for each additional Psyker in the unit beyond the first"
In the inquisition codex, under Psychic Barrage, it states:
“If you want to manifest this psychic power you must select a model that knows this psychic power to take the psychic test, and measure range, line of sight etc. from him. The Strength and AP of Psychic Barrage both increase by 1 for each model in the unit that knows this power after the first”
For whats its worth I posted this on their FB page
I think many people will be very glad that they can no field the Holy Inquisition in their armies and I welcome this, however:
I am sadly disapointed by many elements of the implementation.
It appears to be a partial copy/paste from Grey Knights but also no Assassins
Valeria - who appears in two Codexes fluff has been dropped - not only was she cool but now the only way to field an Ordo Xenos Special Character is through the Grey Knights Codex? Also another female SC gone - sad days.........
Lack of options on the Inquistors - in particular not being able to equip them with force fields or artificer armour which makes trying to recreate the heroes and herorines of the Black Library novels impossible.
I would hope that this could be looked at further should it be revised or it goes to print
Dysartes wrote: Given the content, the same person who wrote the Grey Knight book?
Two other people already said that.
But, as Zion said, it credits "play testers", so it could well be that Digital Editions put it all togetther and added in the extra stuff themselves. They might've gotten Ward's input, though.
Valeria - who appears in two Codexes fluff has been dropped - not only was she cool but now the only way to field an Ordo Xenos Special Character is through the Grey Knights Codex? Also another female SC gone - sad days.........
Well. As said. Post your thanks over at Chapterhouse Studios. Do it again when things like Doom of Malan'tai drop from the Tyranid Codex. And again when Duke Sliscus and Lady Malys are gone from the next Dark Eldar book. And again when Old Zogwort vanishes from the next Ork Codex.
Mr Morden wrote: For whats its worth I posted this on their FB page
I think many people will be very glad that they can no field the Holy Inquisition in their armies and I welcome this, however:
I am sadly disapointed by many elements of the implementation.
It appears to be a partial copy/paste from Grey Knights but also no Assassins
Valeria - who appears in two Codexes fluff has been dropped - not only was she cool but now the only way to field an Ordo Xenos Special Character is through the Grey Knights Codex? Also another female SC gone - sad days.........
Lack of options on the Inquistors - in particular not being able to equip them with force fields or artificer armour which makes trying to recreate the heroes and herorines of the Black Library novels impossible.
I would hope that this could be looked at further should it be revised or it goes to print
Good post, you said the right things in a polite way. They might just listen.
So I haven't purchased C:INQ yet, and haven't had much experience with the GK codex, though from what I have seen, a malleus INQ (using the Rex model from FW /drool) sounds like a fun addition to the IG army I have just started building (it is using DKOK models though with IG codex)
Your only minor problem with Rex is that the shield will be purely decorative since no Inquisitor has access to combat/storm shields sadly. However you're right that the codex seems to make a good addition to another army or a good small army.
I don't mind that the shield would be decorative. I can't get the idea of a INQ leading my IG. Going to go get C:INQ now, even if it slightly gimps my 1850 list haha.
Valeria - who appears in two Codexes fluff has been dropped - not only was she cool but now the only way to field an Ordo Xenos Special Character is through the Grey Knights Codex? Also another female SC gone - sad days.........
Well. As said. Post your thanks over at Chapterhouse Studios. Do it again when things like Doom of Malan'tai drop from the Tyranid Codex. And again when Duke Sliscus and Lady Malys are gone from the next Dark Eldar book. And again when Old Zogwort vanishes from the next Ork Codex.
Oh, grow up, Zwei (and he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-he-post-nonsense-once-more).
GW changing policies to reduce gaps in their line is their choice, not CH's - it may be in response to their actions, but GW's choices are theirs alone. They could simply release models to fill these gaps, but that is apparently too complicated a notion...
"The strength of the attach increases by 1 for each additional Psyker in the unit beyond the first"
"The AP of the attack improves by 1 for each additional Psyker in the unit beyond the first"
In the inquisition codex, under Psychic Barrage, it states:
“If you want to manifest this psychic power you must select a model that knows this psychic power to take the psychic test, and measure range, line of sight etc. from him. The Strength and AP of Psychic Barrage both increase by 1 for each model in the unit that knows this power after the first”
Which is not the same thing.
Meh, it's sloppy, but correct. What is an increase in Armor Penetration? Surely not a decrease in the effectiveness of what armor the shot can penetrate! When AP increases, it gets better, so they number gets lower.
There is a chance that future models are created and rules added/changed as required. That is the joy of digital downloads. Eventually have that female INQ added, and Eisenhorn, as well as artificer armor choices etc.
Troike wrote: Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?
Given the content, the same person who wrote the Grey Knight book?
It actually is the new dream team of GW, but we only know their pseudonyms:
Mr. Copy and Mr. Paste. Expect to see many more of their works in the future, esp. digital releases.
Troike wrote: Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?
Given the content, the same person who wrote the Grey Knight book?
It actually is the new dream team of GW, but we only know their pseudonyms:
Mr. Copy and Mr. Paste. Expect to see many more of their works in the future, esp. digital releases.
I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol
Troike wrote: Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?
Given the content, the same person who wrote the Grey Knight book?
It actually is the new dream team of GW, but we only know their pseudonyms:
Mr. Copy and Mr. Paste. Expect to see many more of their works in the future, esp. digital releases.
I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol
Agreed. Though good luck convincing Kroot of that is nigh-impossible.
Rippy wrote: I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol
In other words, in a few years, you expect this "Codex: Inquisition" to be updated to 6th edition
Rippy wrote: I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol
In other words, in a few years, you expect this "Codex: Inquisition" to be updated to 6th edition
Oh, grow up, Zwei (and he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-he-post-nonsense-once-more).
GW changing policies to reduce gaps in their line is their choice, not CH's - it may be in response to their actions, but GW's choices are theirs alone. They could simply release models to fill these gaps, but that is apparently too complicated a notion...
Sure they could release models. But that's not the point.
Releasing rules / characters without rules used to be the place where creative hobbyists could shine. These gaps were done with a purpose, so that people could kitbash and convert and show off their own.
In that, Chapterhouse is not doing any harm to GW, who admittedly could just put out a model and be done with it (or pull the rules).
The true tragedy is that freeloaders like Chapterhouse, by sticking their greedy tentacles into any opening of others (instead of doing something creative of their own) are pissing on the creative spirit of the people in this hobby, diminishing the gaps for "making things your own" that used to be the special quality that made this hobby stand apart from other past times.
Oh, grow up, Zwei (and he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-he-post-nonsense-once-more).
GW changing policies to reduce gaps in their line is their choice, not CH's - it may be in response to their actions, but GW's choices are theirs alone. They could simply release models to fill these gaps, but that is apparently too complicated a notion...
Sure they could release models. But that's not the point.
Releasing rules / characters without rules used to be the place where creative hobbyists could shine. These gaps were done with a purpose, so that people could kitbash and convert and show off their own.
In that, Chapterhouse is not doing any harm to GW, who admittedly could just put out a model and be done with it (or pull the rules).
The true tragedy is that freeloaders like Chapterhouse, by sticking their greedy tentacles into any opening of others (instead of doing something creative of their own) are pissing on the creative spirit of the people in this hobby, diminishing the gaps for "making things your own" that used to be the special quality that made this hobby stand apart from other past times.
Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good rant there buddy, will you?
Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good rant there buddy, will you?
Funny. Should've been the response to the last 10 pages or so of this thread ranting about Codex Inquisition.
But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).
I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th.
Why? I understand that it could be confusing if same special characters had different rules in different books, but other than that I see no issue. Besides, I don't think that anyone was asking complete rewrite, merely a few more options and point adjustments. If they added relics they could have just as easily added forcefields.
I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th.
Why? I understand that it could be confusing if same special characters had different rules in different books, but other than that I see no issue. Besides, I don't think that anyone was asking complete rewrite, merely a few more options and point adjustments. If they added relics they could have just as easily added forcefields.
Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.
Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.
No, because GK could just take these new, improved Inquisitors as allies.
Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good rant there buddy, will you?
Funny. Should've been the response to the last 10 pages or so of this thread ranting about Codex Inquisition.
But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).
Do I have to repost my original comment?
It was a civil case, so even if found guilty on ALL counts CHS would never have been "criminals." Additionally, they weren't found guilty on all counts were they? They were found guilty in a minority of counts, before appeal.
That would be an appeal where they are now represented by one of the foremost IP law firms in the US pro bono and better qualified minds than mine are tipping them to overturn still more of those findings that were said to infringe in GW.
So, while you might have a negative opinion of CHS, it is both a fact and a matter of law that in most incidences they were doing nothing wrong, and in those cases where they were found to have crossed the line by an uneducated jury, it looks like there is a fair chance they will actually be cleared in the final analysis.
Honestly Zwei, you throw up some pretty fething gak arguments in defence of GW some times, but this is surely beneath you?
Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.
No, because GK could just take these new, improved Inquisitors as allies.
Right, because GK Inquisitor players would really be happy with having to buy a book to get the better options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On a different note, the "no model = no rules" thing is a result of the CHS lawsuit case, regardless of who is to blame, GW will not be heading down that road anymore to prevent a repeat of it. I'm not blaming anyone here, just stating that the case itself as led to a change in how GW operates.
Digital Editions also said that they couldn't change the BA codex at all since it would invalidate a book that was on sale "before its time", so the same issue may have applied here. They could've been fairly restricted in terms of doing new things.
Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.
Noah built the Ark. Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and parted the Red Sea.
As to the no models=no rules, does it really matter that it was instigated by the CHS case? Which I'm not sure is provable since they were still releasing rules without models nearly a year into the suit.
Until GW actually makes a statement to confirm, it's speculation which really has no place in this thread.
But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).
Wow.
You've really gone off the deep end and into crazy town.
Kroothawk wrote: 10 years ago, this would have been a WD article with "you can attach the Inquisition units to other Imperial armies as well" plus wargear plus warlord tables, 5 pages max.
10 years ago this was a WD article. Before the DH Codex came out Inquisitors + Henchmen appeared in a WD article.
Thanks! Looks neat. If it's how you and ClockworkZion described, I think it should work pretty well.
If is as long as you like the idea of pulling a modified version of all the Inquisition stuff out of the GK codex and being able to ally the Sororitas to that as Battle Brothers.
Otherwise it's hit or miss if people seem to like it.
Melissia wrote: I was of the opinion that they shouldn't have been in the GK codex to begin with.
Malleus and Coteaz, sure. Even their Warband options. But the others? Yeah, they didn't really fit it properly.
Oh and the debates about Sisters and Inquisition ties are dead. Hereticus doesn't mention a chamber of militant of any kind, and it's just a general thing that Sisters work with the Inquisition (just like every other Imperium branch.
ClockworkZion wrote: If is as long as you like the idea of pulling a modified version of all the Inquisition stuff out of the GK codex and being able to ally the Sororitas to that as Battle Brothers.
That's exactly what I like. Got my Inquisition back.
Yeah, you may want to sit this one out until we see if they get updated when Grey Knights do. I can't imagine you'd want to partake in this book with it costing something like 13 points to put a BS3 Guardsman on the table who pretends to be a Stormtrooper.
Has anybody pointed out yet that C:I doesn't actually let Red Hunters and Sisters be treated as Battle Brothers because of the way the =I= codex was set up? They're not part of the Sisters' Allied Detachment if taken, they're in their own detachment.
(Referring to the Forge World Space Marine Chapter Tactics PDF in case anyone's not sure what I"m talking about.)
It says that an Inquisitor has ro be present in the allied detachment, of which Inquisitors have their own inside tha same army (doesn't saythat that detachment has to be the same one as the one that either the Sisters or Red Hunters are taken in) so I'd say it works.
Zweischneid wrote: Releasing rules / characters without rules used to be the place where creative hobbyists could shine. These gaps were done with a purpose, so that people could kitbash and convert and show off their own.
In that, Chapterhouse is not doing any harm to GW, who admittedly could just put out a model and be done with it (or pull the rules).
The true tragedy is that freeloaders like Chapterhouse, by sticking their greedy tentacles into any opening of others (instead of doing something creative of their own) are pissing on the creative spirit of the people in this hobby, diminishing the gaps for "making things your own" that used to be the special quality that made this hobby stand apart from other past times.
What about terrain? Used to be that everyone was encouraged to built their own, to make special terrain out of household items and sheet styrene and styrofoam balls and toothpicks and the gods know what else. But now, everything is standardized. You don't have rules for a bunker anymore, you have rules the specific bunker model GW sells. Yet the business of making wargames terrain existed for a long time before GW suddenly decided to take this step. No, the problem is that GW has no use for creativity, it doesn't sell.
Zweischneid wrote: But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).
Two things:
1) As already pointed out, your use of language is fundamentally dishonest, a trend you seem dead set to adhere to with a zealot-like passionate intensity. The sooner you leave or desist, the better.
2) Boo-hoo, cry me a river. Why is it that Games Workshop's stalwart defenders are both the overwhelming majority (when it comes to pushing their drek on everyone else) and the persecuted minority (when it comes to anyone else pushing back)? I ask merely for information.
2) Boo-hoo, cry me a river. Why is it that Games Workshop's stalwart defenders are both the overwhelming majority (when it comes to pushing their drek on everyone else) and the persecuted minority (when it comes to anyone else pushing back)? I ask merely for information.
Stalwart defender? I've written my share of rants and critical posts about Games Workshop stuff. How does pointing out the wrong-doings of other people and companies make me a defender of Games Workshop?
Really, I think the problem on Dakka is too often that people don't measure other companies by the same benchmark they use to bash Games Workshop. GW is getting heat in just about every thread here - often deservedly - but very little criticism is spared for other companies doing the same things (pricing, release-schedule, product quality, etc.., you name it).
And yes, it was only a civil court case against Chapterhouse. They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, no less so just because some slimy lawyer got them off with less than they deserve.
1) As already pointed out, your use of language is fundamentally dishonest, a trend you seem dead set to adhere to with a zealot-like passionate intensity. The sooner you leave or desist, the better.
.
I could say the same for 98% of the Codex: Inquisition bashing going on here. Does the Codex deserve criticism? Perhaps. It might be a bad product deserving (constructive) criticism. But the jaded and agitating rants going on here for the most part aren't it.
I agree that other companies deserve more loathing and distrust, but wielding hyperbolic slanders like the nunchucks of outrage will act contrary to your purpose, being more far likely to swing the blunt club of inaccurate statements directly at the forehead of your credibility.
Zweischneid wrote: And yes, it was only a civil court case against Chapterhouse. They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, no less so just because some slimy lawyer got them off with less than they deserve.
Them earning your personal censure does not mean it was criminal.
Agamemnon2 wrote: I agree that other companies deserve more loathing and distrust, but wielding hyperbolic slanders like the nunchucks of outrage will act contrary to your purpose, being more far likely to swing the blunt club of inaccurate statements directly at the forehead of your credibility.
How does it further my credibility if I pre-censor my opinions in the name of sheepish GW(only)-bashing Dakka-conformity? If you despise plurality of opinions... don't go to internet forums!
ClockworkZion wrote: If is as long as you like the idea of pulling a modified version of all the Inquisition stuff out of the GK codex and being able to ally the Sororitas to that as Battle Brothers.
This Codex is for people who want Ordo Xenos Inquisitors to lead an Eldar army, not just Jokaeroes
BTW funny coincidence:
If the rumours are true and GW is indeed dropping metal and Finecast Q2 2014, then both C:AS and C:I will be kind of obsolete in half a year. Meaning that you can't buy any models for them from GW. So both Codices are more a ploy to sell off old stock than a show of real interest in both armies.
Zweischneid wrote: How does it further my credibility if I pre-censor my opinions in the name of sheepish GW(only)-bashing Dakka-conformity? If you despise plurality of opinions... don't go to internet forums!
I was referring more to sticking with accurate and factual accusations, but if you insist on seeing enemies and conspiracies everywhere, who am I to deny your wish? It just seems like such a woeful and sad perspective to take on what's supposed to be a hobby we engage in for fun. The grand pastime of miniatures collecting and painting deserves better.
Them earning your personal censure does not mean it was criminal.
If calling theft a crime is "personal censure" unique to my person, then so be it.
Even downloading MP3 is not theft. Something even more nebulous like IP infringement and questionable fair-use practices certainly do not qualify. Theft is what it says in the law, under "Theft". To be a criminal is to commit crimes, and the definition of crimes is found in criminal law. Now, whether or not CHS are guilty of morally objectionable acts or perhaps even offenses in the eyes of one or more deities is a separate topic. They may be sinners, but then again, which of us aren't?
I do believe some fellow from Syria or Palestine or thereabouts had something to say about that, regarding stones and possibly the throwing thereof.
Rippy wrote: There is a chance that future models are created and rules added/changed as required. That is the joy of digital downloads. Eventually have that female INQ added, and Eisenhorn, as well as artificer armor choices etc.
I do believe some fellow from Syria or Palestine or thereabouts had something to say about that, regarding stones and possibly the throwing thereof.
If everyone here would adhere that with the constant speculative insinuations towards GW's (allegedly jadedly money-grabbing) internal process of creating products, I will stop as well.
In the spirit of mutual reciprocity of said prophet, criticize everyone on dakka who ever voices a non-100% factual-proof-based critique of GW with the same fervor that you just prosecuted my criticisms of Chapterhouse, and your self-proclaimed status as "watchdog of integer criticism" would have - as you called it - credibility.
Zweischneid wrote: They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .
This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!
Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?
As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?
Downloading an MP3, possibly forging it to make it look like it is your own. and selling it for profit, however, is.
What about listening to an album, liking the sound, getting your own band together to record similar songs? For example, Manowar doesnt have the exclusive right to make music about gleaming swords, Norse gods and manly men doing manly things, after all. If Chapterhouse had taken physical products, reworked them for sale and done as you describe, then fair go, maybe they would have been sanctioned even more severely.
But this is all a digression. Should you wish to continue, kindly do so in email, at the address agamemnon2ATqmail.com. I have no idea whose that is, but they have about as good a chance of developing a meaningful conclusion out of this than me, so fair goes.
Zweischneid wrote: They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .
This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!
Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?
As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?
Zweischneid wrote: They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .
This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!
Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?
As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?
More an O.J. Simpson type of thing I would say.
So...Chapterhouse may or may not have murdered its wife?
Zweischneid wrote: They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .
This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!
Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?
As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?
More an O.J. Simpson type of thing I would say.
So...Chapterhouse may or may not have murdered its wife?
Don't all the downloadable codices come with the ability for GW to update the rules in the file at any time? Or was that some sort of ipad-only thing?
Just wondering because having any FAQs or updates automatically append themselves to my codex so I don't have to look them up all the time would make these e-codices worth buying for me.
So...Chapterhouse may or may not have murdered its wife?
The lack of a formal "guilty" verdict may or may not prove that no crime was actually committed?
Zweis, some levity was needed. You're effectively trying to kill it. Should start calling YOU OJ. But then if you and Chapterhouse are both OJ...what a twist!!
Ps, I got a three hour nap between work yesterday and startin work before the sun came up today. I'm overtired, and nobody should take anything I say today seriously. I'm in "a mood".
Zweischneid wrote: In the spirit of mutual reciprocity of said prophet, criticize everyone on dakka who ever voices a non-100% factual-proof-based critique of GW with the same fervor that you just prosecuted my criticisms of Chapterhouse, and your self-proclaimed status as "watchdog of integer criticism" would have - as you called it - credibility.
Do you take me for a puppet? I don't dance to your fiddle, good sir, just as I have no doubt whatsoever that you would not do me the same courtesy, were our positions reversed. Whether or not you consider my actions indicative of credibility ranks somewhere slightly below distress over mismatched socks in my current list of priorities, so pardon me if I don't immediately leap to the rescue of my questionable reputation on the say-so of a two-bit prancing harlequin riding the hobby horse of dubious criminality up and down the fields in the guise of a crusading knight but without even the spurs to press his case, nevermind a sword to slay his dragon.
As the worn phrase goes, we must "agree to disagree", else we render this forum unpalatable, and tender fools of ourselves in the attempt, winning neither glory, acclaim or even the momentary satisfaction of a battle hard fought.
Do you take me for a puppet? I don't dance to your fiddle, good sir, just as I have no doubt whatsoever that you would not do me the same courtesy, were our positions reversed. Whether or not you consider my actions indicative of credibility ranks somewhere slightly below distress over mismatched socks in my current list of priorities, so pardon me if I don't immediately leap to the rescue of my questionable reputation on the say-so of a two-bit prancing harlequin riding the hobby horse of dubious criminality up and down the fields in the guise of a crusading knight but without even the spurs to press his case, nevermind a sword to slay his dragon.
As the worn phrase goes, we must "agree to disagree", else we render this forum unpalatable, and tender fools of ourselves in the attempt, winning neither glory, acclaim or even the momentary satisfaction of a battle hard fought.
And back OT digital editions have confirmed that lacking las/auto guns wasnt an oversight (will be run as pistol ccw combo for my henchmen now.). Say what you will they responded to the rules question quickly and concisely when asked.
Agamemnon2 wrote: O, I am slain by my own sesquipedalian locquaciousness! Cursed be my penchant for elaborate and bombastic circumlocution! Alas! Alaaaas!
*dies*
PS: The word you're looking for is "pompous", not "presumptuous", but A for effort.
Don't let Mrs Malaprop stop now.... That was too fun.
Agamemnon2 wrote: O, I am slain by my own sesquipedalian locquaciousness! Cursed be my penchant for elaborate and bombastic circumlocution! Alas! Alaaaas!
*dies*
PS: The word you're looking for is "pompous", not "presumptuous", but A for effort.
Would "bumptious" be agreeable? I apologize if my loquaciousness (not locquaciousness) as of yet lacks sophistication. As you clearly got the general meaning however, nitpicking vocabulary appears to be distraction from the contentious argument of whether or not somebody's credibility (however defined) is subject to the vetting of another, or not? Either way, I am certain you agree that the answer to the latter would have to stand both ways, no?
Badablack wrote: Don't all the downloadable codices come with the ability for GW to update the rules in the file at any time? Or was that some sort of ipad-only thing?
Just wondering because having any FAQs or updates automatically append themselves to my codex so I don't have to look them up all the time would make these e-codices worth buying for me.
You have to manually redownload the BL version but you can do so at any time.
Kroothawk wrote: Meaning that you can't buy any models for them from GW. So both Codices are more a ploy to sell off old stock than a show of real interest in both armies.
LOL, who buys those models when making their henchmen? Most people kitbash as they should.
Kroothawk wrote: Meaning that you can't buy any models for them from GW. So both Codices are more a ploy to sell off old stock than a show of real interest in both armies.
LOL, who buys those models when making their henchmen? Most people kitbash as they should.
I think he's talking about the metal Inquisitor models.
And if it really is the case then we should be expecting them to be getting something in the future, same with Sisters, or else GW basically shoots it's own foot off for no reason.
Super Newb wrote: Most people seem to kitbash their HQs too. Isn't that the whole point of the Inquisition, to make up your own dudes?
For normal players anyway. Not so sure about powergamers who take them only for bare minimum powers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ClockworkZion wrote: And if it really is the case then we should be expecting them to be getting something in the future, same with Sisters, or else GW basically shoots it's own foot off for no reason.
Remember, Games Workshop is afraid of money that doesn't come from Space Marines.
