JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has repeatedly said that players are free to play with whatever Codices they chose, in print, or not.
Non-GW Tournaments may restrict players, but that's among players, not a GW mandate.
My "Codex: Imperial Guard" is still valid, and I continue to play it.
If that were the case, it would be impossible for GW to nerf anything. When you play "Imperial Guard", do you play against 5th ed GK?
If someone wanted to, sure. Or even CSM 3.5. OMG.
It's not like we're playing for money, or people go home crying when they get curb-stomped. Last game was 1k of my Guard with 1k (supposed to be 1500) of GSC against 2.5k of BA. We got crushed. Before that, it was Apoc with 5 Knights against Orks, who got rolled pretty badly. Mainly, we enjoyed the beer and brats.
nekooni wrote: Why can't a Squad of Sisters board an Immolator? Enlighten me, please.
Because it's not a squad of Battle Sisters. it's an Inquisitorial Warband. The unit has to be deployed together, so unless the "squad of Acolytes" contains 1 Acolyte and the Inquisitor counts as 0 models then there's no way to fit the unit into a 6 max transport capacity Immolator. Could you not have worked that out yourself?
I really hope it turns out the intention with the inquisitorial detachment is that the sisters/GK/DW can be in the squad with everything else. But it really isn't clear from that scan.
I'd also really like to know the minimum squad size for Acolytes, if they are going to be the same old terrible mooks from the Inquisition book.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has repeatedly said that players are free to play with whatever Codices they chose, in print, or not.
Non-GW Tournaments may restrict players, but that's among players, not a GW mandate.
My "Codex: Imperial Guard" is still valid, and I continue to play it.
If that were the case, it would be impossible for GW to nerf anything. When you play "Imperial Guard", do you play against 5th ed GK?
John, if you're not playing in a 'matched play'/tournament type setting you can use the goddam second ed Dwarf codex from fantasy with your Eldar. No one playing only casual games should give a gak what rules GW does and doesn't come out with.
So saying obvious stuff like 'turns out rules don't matter when the games don't matter' doesn't really add much.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has repeatedly said that players are free to play with whatever Codices they chose, in print, or not.
Non-GW Tournaments may restrict players, but that's among players, not a GW mandate.
My "Codex: Imperial Guard" is still valid, and I continue to play it.
If that were the case, it would be impossible for GW to nerf anything. When you play "Imperial Guard", do you play against 5th ed GK?
The "you must use the newest rules" is entirely a construction of the playerbase rather than GW. I don't think GW have ever written that you must use the newest version of a rule and if I recall correctly an offhand remark was made about using the old Ork codex at some point (might have been for the sake of using a looted vehicle or some such).
Commisar wrote: I really hope it turns out the intention with the inquisitorial detachment is that the sisters/GK/DW can be in the squad with everything else. But it really isn't clear from that scan.
I'd also really like to know the minimum squad size for Acolytes, if they are going to be the same old terrible mooks from the Inquisition book.
I don't. I'm hoping I get to throw the Acolytes in the bin at deployment so I can have a not-Warlord with my Deathwatch/ BSS/ GKSS.
StupidYellow wrote: Quite frankly that warhammer tv thing was a spiteful joke. They should just come out and admit it.[
What did they do?
They said that there was a Sisters of Battle sprue in the bin and that it wouldn't be out for a few months.
That is *not* what they said. At no point did GW ever say anything close to that. What you have is a lot of wishful thinking.
They showed a trash can,
One voice goes "what's this, these aren't coming out for months."
Another voice asks, incredulously "Sisters of Battle?"
Fade to black.
It was obviously in jest, and VERY FUNNY, and would have been better punctuated with a rimshot before the close. Or maybe Porky Pig popping up afterward.
They specifically said "plastic sisters of battle" actually and it was the same voice which said "These aren't coming out for months".
And to joke about something that quite a few people are very passionate about and have been waiting years to get and then not follow through on it is just fething dumb and would be page 1 in "How to piss off your fanbase for Dummies". Something which I said at the time.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has repeatedly said that players are free to play with whatever Codices they chose, in print, or not.
Non-GW Tournaments may restrict players, but that's among players, not a GW mandate.
My "Codex: Imperial Guard" is still valid, and I continue to play it.
If that were the case, it would be impossible for GW to nerf anything. When you play "Imperial Guard", do you play against 5th ed GK?
If someone wanted to, sure. Or even CSM 3.5. OMG.
It's not like we're playing for money, or people go home crying when they get curb-stomped. Last game was 1k of my Guard with 1k (supposed to be 1500) of GSC against 2.5k of BA. We got crushed. Before that, it was Apoc with 5 Knights against Orks, who got rolled pretty badly. Mainly, we enjoyed the beer and brats.
And what a joke. The possibly most asked about kit is just a joke to GW. Yeah really nice.
I see some people are just as spiteful as GW. Just when I thought it couldn't be more nasty.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And to joke about something that quite a few people are very passionate about and have been waiting years to get and then not follow through on it is just fething dumb and would be page 1 in "How to piss off your fanbase for Dummies". Something which I said at the time.
Kind of like pushing a bunch of expensive ancient metal models a few months before releasing plastic models is the 2nd half of page 1 in the same book?
Commisar wrote: I really hope it turns out the intention with the inquisitorial detachment is that the sisters/GK/DW can be in the squad with everything else. But it really isn't clear from that scan.
I'd also really like to know the minimum squad size for Acolytes, if they are going to be the same old terrible mooks from the Inquisition book.
I don't. I'm hoping I get to throw the Acolytes in the bin at deployment so I can have a not-Warlord with my Deathwatch/ BSS/ GKSS.
Aha, What I want is a squad of Chamber Militant dudes, with an inquisitor, but also a Monkey or a Deamonhost or some Crusaders or something like that.
Comeon, a Mixed squad of BSS and Crusaders would look awesome.
nekooni wrote: Why can't a Squad of Sisters board an Immolator? Enlighten me, please.
Because it's not a squad of Battle Sisters. it's an Inquisitorial Warband. The unit has to be deployed together, so unless the "squad of Acolytes" contains 1 Acolyte and the Inquisitor counts as 0 models then there's no way to fit the unit into a 6 max transport capacity Immolator. Could you not have worked that out yourself?
Ah, so they form something similar to a Kill Team? I didn't know that (hard to find actual information in this thread that is flooded with offtopic and banter posts), thanks for clarifying that. I assumed they were simply a Formation of multiple units as usual.
Solis Luna Astrum wrote: 10 pages of something called Warriors of the Emperor. I'll bet you a cheese sandwich that's where Celestine is. I'm guessing that also includes Sisters of Silence and the Custodian Guard.
How much are you willing to lose, and how will you send me the money? Because we have a deal here.
Maybe a 10 years DCM paid by the loser for the winner?
I am alone in my dedication to the wondertastic Andrea Uderzo sisters. I shall weep a lone, very manly tear that will trickle from my manly eye down to my manly jaw. .
Not completely alone. #solidarity
Great minds think alike! Thanks, you brighten my day.
Mr Morden wrote: Hey wow a re-roll of 1's on saves - but you need to take an elite slot - cos they are all awesome
To be fair, Conclaves can be pretty awesome. Will eat PA marines all day long.
Thommy H wrote: […]
- Playtest the rules.
- Refine wording as needed, copy-edit again.
- Playtest revised version. As formations don't have points in 40K, ensure the unit tax is sufficient to justify its abilities.
[…]
Okay I admit that joke was funny.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: A third is absolutely not popular. In a group of 100 people that's 33 and a pair of floating legs for some reason playing 40k.
If a decision was going to be made, they're pretty much a minority that can be ignored.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW has repeatedly said that players are free to play with whatever Codices they chose, in print, or not.
Non-GW Tournaments may restrict players, but that's among players, not a GW mandate.
My "Codex: Imperial Guard" is still valid, and I continue to play it.
If that were the case, it would be impossible for GW to nerf anything. When you play "Imperial Guard", do you play against 5th ed GK?
John, if you're not playing in a 'matched play'/tournament type setting you can use the goddam second ed Dwarf codex from fantasy with your Eldar. No one playing only casual games should give a gak what rules GW does and doesn't come out with.
So saying obvious stuff like 'turns out rules don't matter when the games don't matter' doesn't really add much.
First off, basically nobody plays actual tournament games - tournament is probably only around 1% of all 40k games ever played. It has been a long time since GW tried to merge 40k and Fantasy, and the results were not particularly encouraging, although the source material from RoC StD was pretty awesome.
Lately, my group only plays casual games, and the fact that 2 of our guys just bought the brand new GSC Codex shows that we definitely do care what rules GW comes out with. That said, nobody seems that hot for Imperial Agents. I think you should not attempt to speak for us.
Finally, no rules don't matter, so maybe you should untwist yourself and just breathe...
Fenrir Kitsune wrote: I don't play GW games. Don't know why you assume that I love GW.
Why are you here at all then?
I may not play GW games, but I have an interest in some of the models for other games that I play. Might get some 5-6 sisters for that, might not. Undecided.
nekooni wrote: Why can't a Squad of Sisters board an Immolator? Enlighten me, please.
Because it's not a squad of Battle Sisters. it's an Inquisitorial Warband. The unit has to be deployed together, so unless the "squad of Acolytes" contains 1 Acolyte and the Inquisitor counts as 0 models then there's no way to fit the unit into a 6 max transport capacity Immolator. Could you not have worked that out yourself?
I don't think it works that way, bear with me:
The restriction reads that all formation components with the (1) notation must be part of the acolytes' unit. The only things that don't have the (1) besides the acolyte unit are the Inquisitor himself and the optional chambers militant they can take.
Therefore: the formation allows you to take a battle sister squad with Immolator if you so choose. The Inquisitor may join them, or his ragtag band of acolytes, or neither, but the acolytes and the Sisters are separate.
Solis Luna Astrum wrote: 10 pages of something called Warriors of the Emperor. I'll bet you a cheese sandwich that's where Celestine is. I'm guessing that also includes Sisters of Silence and the Custodian Guard.
How much are you willing to lose, and how will you send me the money? Because we have a deal here.
Maybe a 10 years DCM paid by the loser for the winner?
I am alone in my dedication to the wondertastic Andrea Uderzo sisters. I shall weep a lone, very manly tear that will trickle from my manly eye down to my manly jaw. .
Not completely alone. #solidarity
Great minds think alike! Thanks, you brighten my day.
Mr Morden wrote: Hey wow a re-roll of 1's on saves - but you need to take an elite slot - cos they are all awesome
To be fair, Conclaves can be pretty awesome. Will eat PA marines all day long.
Thommy H wrote: […]
- Playtest the rules.
- Refine wording as needed, copy-edit again.
- Playtest revised version. As formations don't have points in 40K, ensure the unit tax is sufficient to justify its abilities.
[…]
Okay I admit that joke was funny.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: A third is absolutely not popular. In a group of 100 people that's 33 and a pair of floating legs for some reason playing 40k.
If a decision was going to be made, they're pretty much a minority that can be ignored.
Woah, you must be such a good businessman!
Conclave is a formation now, last i saw they broke it up into a bunch of useless units that don't serve any purpose outsode of the formation, and Slayer-fan is at best a troll or at worst just someone who has very little capacity for meaning...just meaning in a general cosmic sense.
A Town Called Malus wrote: And to joke about something that quite a few people are very passionate about and have been waiting years to get and then not follow through on it is just fething dumb and would be page 1 in "How to piss off your fanbase for Dummies". Something which I said at the time.
Kind of like pushing a bunch of expensive ancient metal models a few months before releasing plastic models is the 2nd half of page 1 in the same book?
Yep and is also mentioned in the blurb on the back.
StupidYellow wrote: And what a joke. The possibly most asked about kit is just a joke to GW.
[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]Sisters aren't even close to the most asked about kit...
That would be Squats.
I said possibly. Wow just wow, maybe you should go get a job in GW I'm sure you will fit right in.
S.Y.
It's always funny to hear John of all people on this forum call someone stupid. It's a lot like listening to a blue whale tell an ant to watch his weight.
This thread too heated. Please keep in mind that Rule Number One is Be Polite. Warnings have already been posted in-thread and via PM. From now on, I'm just going to start temporarily suspending accounts.
For the record, it's is okay post that you do or don't like a release. It is not okay to insult people who do or don't.
Similarly, it is not okay to tell people to "stop whining" or other dismissive/inflammatory statements.
ERJAK wrote: Conclave is a formation now, last i saw they broke it up into a bunch of useless units that don't serve any purpose outsode of the formation
I'm not sure what it entices.
And I could name an even worse troll.
Solis Luna Astrum wrote: 10 pages of something called Warriors of the Emperor. I'll bet you a cheese sandwich that's where Celestine is. I'm guessing that also includes Sisters of Silence and the Custodian Guard.
How much are you willing to lose, and how will you send me the money? Because we have a deal here.
Reading is fundamental. The wager is for a cheese sandwich. If I am wrong, and I certainly could be, provide me your address and I will mail you said sandwich.
The restriction reads that all formation components with the (1) notation must be part of the acolytes' unit. The only things that don't have the (1) besides the acolyte unit are the Inquisitor himself and the optional chambers militant they can take.
Therefore: the formation allows you to take a battle sister squad with Immolator if you so choose. The Inquisitor may join them, or his ragtag band of acolytes, or neither, but the acolytes and the Sisters are separate.
You're right.
The Formation consists of up to three units rules-wise:
1 Inquisitor
1 squad of Acolytes PLUS anything you add from the Formations content list that's marked with the '1'
1 squad of units related to the Inquisitors Ordo
And when you look at the formation's rules you should notice that they're not refering to single models most of the time - DCAs are 0 or 2-10 models now, I'll bet the Crusaders and Arco-flagellants work similar. So the rules changed slightly, but outside of Mystics (meh) and Servitors (which IS a shame, but maybe they're hidden in the Enginseer entry? Has that page been leaked yet?) we've not lost a thing, but gained the ability to bring the Chambers Militant as part of the formation.
And being able to generate and use a Warlord trait on literally all Inquisitors you bring is awesome. Remember the formation is 1 Inquisitor only, so if you want to bring 2 Henchmen Squads with an Inquisitor each you'll have your actual Warlord PLUS both Inquisitors generating Warlord traits. That could turn out really powerful assuming you're not locked to a specific trait on the Inquisitors - sadly their page is impossible to decipher to me thanks to the blur.
Considering all that I'm quite pleased with the Inquisition update, all I need to see now is the Acolyte wargear options and their transport choices.
--
*edit* so to answer the original question: Yes, that Sisters of Battle Squad can purchase and deploy in an Immolator. The Inquisitor would even be free to join them there as they're from the same detachment - at least that's how I'd rule it. I don't think that last part is 100% supported by the rules, though - so a TO might decide otherwise.
Solis Luna Astrum wrote: Reading is fundamental. The wager is for a cheese sandwich. If I am wrong, and I certainly could be, provide me your address and I will mail you said sandwich.
Oh, sorry. Very disappointed. Even if the sandwich doesn't go bad during the transportation, it would still be US cheese!
Solis Luna Astrum wrote: Reading is fundamental. The wager is for a cheese sandwich. If I am wrong, and I certainly could be, provide me your address and I will mail you said sandwich.
Oh, sorry. Very disappointed. Even if the sandwich doesn't go bad during the transportation, it would still be US cheese!
I'm a bit shocked. Why would the winner have to eat a sandwich made with US cheese? Shouldn't that one go to the looser? I mean, sure, it has time to develop some kind of flavor on the plane, but it's probably still inedible.
I wonder what deal Bols has made with the devi... ehm gw to gain the monopoly on rumors. But I don't care they show it to us : D
It's awesome - GW finally managing to behave like a regular company, sending out preview copies and doing the social media stuff, too. As fethed up as 2016 was, at least there's some light ;-)
So old inquisition you could run 3 bands of 12 guys or 36 + your inquisitor
I'm interested in how many acolytes come in 1 unit slot, how many Arcos can I get with 1?
10 dca? Sold
Also it appears that the military arm is not part of the blob as it doesn't have the footnote so your acolytes can have dedicated transports and so can the military arm.
I wonder if the monkeys still affect the entire henchmen war band?
What is the minimum cost of acolytes? Inquisitor spam for warlord traits and orbital strike relays?
ShaneMarsh wrote: Question: If I use the Inq Warband and I get a Battle Sister Squad, can I buy an Immo for hat squad? It is in the squad options and all.
You could, but they wouldn't be able to ride in it. There's only enough room in an Immo for the 5-model squad and an IC, so the unit of Acolytes forces them out of it. Least that's how it looks from here.
But if the upgrade option for dedicated transport is on the Battle Sister page, wouldn't it be Faction AS? IE; Sisters could start in it, but not the Inquisitor and Acolytes?
nekooni wrote: I'm a bit shocked. Why would the winner have to eat a sandwich made with US cheese? Shouldn't that one go to the looser?
Maybe that's what he meant, but that mean I would have to buy US cheese? *gasp*
Where would you get that in Europe? I mean, I know where to get drugs, but US cheese?
while the BoLS vid is quite informative it's just the stuff we already know - at least from skipping through it it was literally the same pages from that russian source which was probably just screencaps of the video.
nekooni wrote: *edit* so to answer the original question: Yes, that Sisters of Battle Squad can purchase and deploy in an Immolator. The Inquisitor would even be free to join them there as they're from the same detachment - at least that's how I'd rule it. I don't think that last part is 100% supported by the rules, though - so a TO might decide otherwise.
Going by what the Captain said I think it is 100% RAW. The Inquisitor doesn't have a (1) either as far as I can see, so you can throw the Acolytes away and just run the not-Warlord with the BSS - and it's the same formation, hence same faction, so she can start in the Immo alongside the BSS.
That's actually not too bad. I was envisioning Black Templars-style squads of mixed armour units with gakky Acolytes locking your dudes out of their transports, then dying and forcing Morale on your Chamber Militant units.
ShaneMarsh wrote: Question: If I use the Inq Warband and I get a Battle Sister Squad, can I buy an Immo for hat squad? It is in the squad options and all.
You could, but they wouldn't be able to ride in it. There's only enough room in an Immo for the 5-model squad and an IC, so the unit of Acolytes forces them out of it. Least that's how it looks from here.
But if the upgrade option for dedicated transport is on the Battle Sister page, wouldn't it be Faction AS? IE; Sisters could start in it, but not the Inquisitor and Warband?
See, the rules for formations and detachments, as far as I know, say that if it's in the same formation/ detachment, then it's the same faction - or something like that (my BRB is on another machine so I can't check), hence the not-Warlord can start in the Immo.
If that's not the case then it just means I'll have to throw the Inquisitor in the bin alongside the Acolytes. Unless the Acolytes can also get a Dedicated Transport, which would be cool.
+My inquisitors got back their malific powers, and can now use daemon swords in in termi armour : D
+My inquisitors get warlord buffs
+The henchmen squad sort of works
- Psyker Inq armies are debuffed
- I do now have 4+ warlords in my army slay the warlord is going to be bad.
- All my "units" are a detachment now... good luck ever playing in an organised event with this army
nekooni wrote: *edit* so to answer the original question: Yes, that Sisters of Battle Squad can purchase and deploy in an Immolator. The Inquisitor would even be free to join them there as they're from the same detachment - at least that's how I'd rule it. I don't think that last part is 100% supported by the rules, though - so a TO might decide otherwise.
Going by what the Captain said I think it is 100% RAW. The Inquisitor doesn't have a (1) either as far as I can see, so you can throw the Acolytes away and just run the not-Warlord with the BSS - and it's the same formation, hence same faction, so she can start in the Immo alongside the BSS.
That's actually not too bad. I was envisioning Black Templars-style squads of mixed armour units with gakky Acolytes locking your dudes out of their transports, then dying and forcing Morale on your Chamber Militant units.
Well it's pretty convoluted, took me quite a while to figure it out with the few pages we have - imagine my face seeing that "0-1 DCAs , 0-1 Crusaders" for the first time. I have like 10 each sitting around.
Now let's just hope they still have decent wargear options on the acolytes and proper transportation (Land Raiders). They had that in Codex: Inquisition, so I'm optimistic here
*edit* taking a glance at the Wargear List:
nothing changed, including the price of Plasma guns - still equivalent to 10 bolters.
The vehicle upgrades were updated in points cost, so vehicles will also be updated to 7th edition
The relics are now Ordo-exclusive, that's the only real change I can see here. Had a laugh at Plasma Pistols still being 5 pts more than a Plasma Gun
nekooni wrote: *edit* so to answer the original question: Yes, that Sisters of Battle Squad can purchase and deploy in an Immolator. The Inquisitor would even be free to join them there as they're from the same detachment - at least that's how I'd rule it. I don't think that last part is 100% supported by the rules, though - so a TO might decide otherwise.
Going by what the Captain said I think it is 100% RAW. The Inquisitor doesn't have a (1) either as far as I can see, so you can throw the Acolytes away and just run the not-Warlord with the BSS - and it's the same formation, hence same faction, so she can start in the Immo alongside the BSS.
That's actually not too bad. I was envisioning Black Templars-style squads of mixed armour units with gakky Acolytes locking your dudes out of their transports, then dying and forcing Morale on your Chamber Militant units.
Well it's pretty convoluted, took me quite a while to figure it out with the few pages we have - imagine my face seeing that "0-1 DCAs , 0-1 Crusaders" for the first time. I have like 10 each sitting around.
Now let's just hope they still have decent wargear options on the acolytes and proper transportation (Land Raiders).
DCAs and Crusaders are now units, so if you have ten Crusaders, you can probably field a unit of ten of them.
oldzoggy wrote: - I do now have 4+ warlords in my army slay the warlord is going to be bad.
From the screencap it seems that they are only considered warlord wrt the Trait rules, i.e. they don't give your opponent more “Slay the warlord” opportunity. Nice ain't it?
oldzoggy wrote: - All my "units" are a detachment now... good luck ever playing in an organised event with this army
I don't think this was ever supposed to be a cohesive army book in the style of Codex: Daemonhunters/ Witch Hunters. The best you'll manage is a Formation allied into another Imperial army (i.e. Space Marines), which is essentially what DH/WH were in the first place (WH not so much since you could run that as full-Sisters and kick ass, but DH were little more than that).
So maybe this is an old-school 3rd Ed Inquisition type book after all. If only they'd rolled back the gakky Crudwarded Sisters rules to 3rd Edition as well.
nekooni wrote: Now let's just hope they still have decent wargear options on the acolytes and proper transportation (Land Raiders).
I'd be happy with them keeping the Valkyries to be honest.
oldzoggy wrote: - I do now have 4+ warlords in my army slay the warlord is going to be bad.
From the screencap it seems that they are only considered warlord wrt the Trait rules, i.e. they don't give your opponent more “Slay the warlord” opportunity. Nice ain't it?
BBAP wrote: If that's not the case then it just means I'll have to throw the Inquisitor in the bin alongside the Acolytes. Unless the Acolytes can also get a Dedicated Transport, which would be cool.
The mechanism to give Inquisitors dedicated transports in their codex was by way of the acolyte squad, so I think you'll still be set right up there. The big question is whether or not they'll retain all the options for DTs they had before...
Imagine fielding immos and razors as far as the eye can see...
Versatilebeats wrote: Btw with militant arm bringing a battle sisters squad in your warband nets up to 20 sob
Without combat squads...
Which works from a fluff perspective, I don't imagine an Order would lend more than that to the direct control of an Inquisitor. Any more or higher quality troops would sensibly require an atache (and therefore, a proper sororitas HQ)
Versatilebeats wrote: 0-1 DCA in the profile for dca squad size is 2 with the option of up to 8 more for the unit so the war and can have a max of 10 dca
I am sure the crusaders have a similar min/max unit size
Btw with militant arm bringing a battle sisters squad in your warband nets up to 20 sob
But those really couldn't board their immolator ;-)
But you're correct - it's literally just the regular unit, so the same applies to the other guys.
DW Veterans in a Blackstar, anyone? Or Drop Podding?
See, the rules for formations and detachments, as far as I know, say that if it's in the same formation/ detachment, then it's the same faction - or something like that (my BRB is on another machine so I can't check), hence the not-Warlord can start in the Immo.
Does anyone know if in fact this is the case? Or do all units retain their own unique Faction even within a detachment / Formation etc
I can't even work out f the Chmaber Militant rule means the GK/SOB/DW squad is or is not part of the formation?
Which works from a fluff perspective, I don't imagine an Order would lend more than that to the direct control of an Inquisitor. Any more or higher quality troops would sensibly require an atache (and therefore, a proper sororitas HQ)
From a crunch perspective, that's a helluva lotta points to lose in a single Sweeping Advance. And that's what'll happen.
See, the rules for formations and detachments, as far as I know, say that if it's in the same formation/ detachment, then it's the same faction - or something like that (my BRB is on another machine so I can't check), hence the not-Warlord can start in the Immo.
Does anyone know if in fact this is the case? Or do all units retain their own unique Faction even within a detachment / Formation etc
I can't even work out f the Chmaber Militant rule means the GK/SOB/DW squad is or is not part of the formation?
It literally says so for the last question:
"An Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband [the formation] that includes [Ordo X/Y/Z Inquisitor] may also include a [insert GK/SOB/DW Squad]
*edit*
WTH. The Codex is sold out in both EN and GER? Guess I'll have to visit the local GW on Saturday.
So still no invulnerable saves for inquisitors... (except with termi armour.) Yeah, not getting this book. Had they fixed that long standing travesty I would have bought this, no matter how much trash it may have otherwise been.
See, the rules for formations and detachments, as far as I know, say that if it's in the same formation/ detachment, then it's the same faction - or something like that (my BRB is on another machine so I can't check), hence the not-Warlord can start in the Immo.
Does anyone know if in fact this is the case? Or do all units retain their own unique Faction even within a detachment / Formation etc
I can't even work out f the Chmaber Militant rule means the GK/SOB/DW squad is or is not part of the formation?
It literally says so for the last question:
"An Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband [the formation] that includes [Ordo X/Y/Z Inquisitor] may also include a [insert GK/SOB/DW Squad]
Yeah but does that mean they are just allowed to be in the army or actually in the formation?
See, the rules for formations and detachments, as far as I know, say that if it's in the same formation/ detachment, then it's the same faction - or something like that (my BRB is on another machine so I can't check), hence the not-Warlord can start in the Immo.
Does anyone know if in fact this is the case? Or do all units retain their own unique Faction even within a detachment / Formation etc
I can't even work out f the Chmaber Militant rule means the GK/SOB/DW squad is or is not part of the formation?
It literally says so for the last question:
"An Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband [the formation] that includes [Ordo X/Y/Z Inquisitor] may also include a [insert GK/SOB/DW Squad]
Yeah but does that mean they are just allowed to be in the army or actually in the formation?
They're included in the formation, it literally couldn't be clearer. The Formation is the Detachment which is the same as "the army". I don't think the later is a proper rule term in 7th edition, but don't quote me on that.
If you mean "do all the units in the formation including the Chamber Militant need to be fielded as a single unit", then the answer appears to be "no". Only Warband stuff over and above the Acolytes needs to join the Acolytes, or at least that's what it looks like from here. The Inquisitor and the Chamber Militant unit seem to be seperate from the Warband crap.
Acolytes and optionally:
- Priests
- Crusaders
- Daemonhosts
- Arco-flagellants
- Death Cult Assassins
- Tech-Priest Enginseers
- Jokaeros
- Astropaths
form a single unit.
The Inquisitor is a regular IC.
The Chambers Militant is a regular unit.
All of these units might or might not have transports available for purchase based on their entries. The acolytes probably have an extensive list, but we know for sure that DCAs have access to Rhinos and Immolators (since they're their own unit now, and it says so on that units entry). The Chambers Militant have access to their regular transports (e.g. Blackstars for DW, Land Raiders for GK and Immolators for AS)
Acolytes and optionally:
- Priests
- Crusaders
- Daemonhosts
- Arco-flagellants
- Death Cult Assassins
- Tech-Priest Enginseers
- Jokaeros
- Astropaths
form a single unit.
The Inquisitor is a regular IC.
The Chambers Militant is a regular unit.
All of these units might or might not have transports available for purchase based on their entries. The acolytes probably have an extensive list, but we know for sure that DCAs have access to Rhinos and Immolators (since they're their own unit now, and it says so on that units entry). The Chambers Militant have access to their regular transports (e.g. Blackstars for DW, Land Raiders for GK and Immolators for AS)
Do we know how many Acolytes must be taken before adding the 'henchmen' to the cluster?
I would love to see (or even hear about ) the Acolytes data slate as well. I don't think any of the reviewers have remotely touched upon it, and It does kind of form the core of most Inquisition armies. I want to know if I'm still stuck paying more than a space marine for a bog standard guardsman with storm trooper gear.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: Do we know how many Acolytes must be taken before adding the 'henchmen' to the cluster?
Sadly no - I haven't seen the Acolytes unit entry at all yet :( It's the one thing really missing , but if you look at the wargear tables it doesn't seem like they've changed much (including Plasma guns still being cheap) - so I assume they're either 3-12 (as before) or maybe 2-10 just like the DCAs.
Sabotage! wrote: I would love to see (or even hear about ) the Acolytes data slate as well. I don't think any of the reviewers have remotely touched upon it, and It does kind of form the core of most Inquisition armies. I want to know if I'm still stuck paying more than a space marine for a bog standard guardsman with storm trooper gear.
Take a look at the wargear list - they've cut in half the armour prices (Carapace 2, Power Armour 5) - so assuming Acolytes are still 4 points base that'll mean:
Marine: 14 points with a Boltgun, 29 with a Plasma gun
Acolyte with PA + Plasma gun = 19 points
Acolyte with PA + Boltgun = 10 points
The Marine will have a Bolt Pistol and the Acolyte would be stuck with a Las Pistol, but that's not really relevant I think.
Guardsman: 5 points with a Lasgun, 20 with a Plasma gun
Acolyte with Flak + Boltgun = 5 points
Acolyte with Flak + Plasma gun = 14 points
This time the Acolyte has the sidearm advantage - he's still got the Laspistol but again: not really relevant.
Guard Veteran Grenadier: 7.5 points with a Lasgun and +1 BS, 22.5 points with a Plasma gun
Acolyte with Carapace + Boltgun = 7 points
Acolyte with Carapace + Plasma gun = 16 points
Tempestus Scion: 12 with Hot-Shot Lasgun, 27 with a Plasma Gun and +1 BS, Deep Strike
Acolyte with Carapace + Hot-Shot Lasgun = 11 points
Acolyte with Carapace + Plasma-Gun = 14 points
So they're pretty well-off and have the edge on Plasma guns I'd say.Flamers are still overpriced at 10 points.
Looks like Power Armoured Plasma guns are the way to go here, and maybe Carapace Boltguns as a cheap way to get a lot of dakka out there.
I have never seen so much anger over nothing in one topic in my life since Star Citizen rage thread on when its going to launch. Palpatine would be proud.
All this anger is meaningless since plastic sisters are coming. Especially now that they proved demand with the resin sister. At this point they are probably looking for a good time to release them and 8th.
Nothing is ever certain. I suppose some sort of catastrophic event could happen like the GW molds get burned to the ground and radical jihadist Genestealer cults could take out the ones already produced.
25 Points for a Warlord Trait?
Does Anyone Know if Inquisitors *HAVE* To Take the Inquisition WTs?
Or Can they also take the BRB ones?
(If so, it means this is going to be the Next Best Thing to Servo Skulls, the Strategic and Tactical Traits Come to Mind)
Wait.... The Chambers Militant rule just adds an additional unit to the formation. Those grey knights etc are not joined by in the henchmen squad.. :\
So effectively the INQ detachments went from.
1-2HQ 1-3Henchmen squads with total freedom
To
1 HQ with its own warlord trait 1 Henchmen squad with compulsory acylotes, no heavy weapon servitors, and a more expensive psyker 0-1 unit of GK termies,sisters or DW vets.
Cool and all as an allied option but I prefer my old book to make the core of my army from the look of it. Having to buy 1 Inq per henchmen squad just seems a bit odd.
While you guys are crying about how awful this codex is I'll be playing hector Rex leading an objective secured inquisitorial warband detschment with his 2++ rerollable save Casting sanctuary and hammerhand with a zealot, rerolling save priest, 2-3x crusaders with 2++ rerollables saves, 2x DCA with thier str6 ap3 x4 atks all for less then 400pts.
I need to see more leaks because of the enginseer grants his unit canticles as well that is just more cheese on top.
commander dante wrote: 25 Points for a Warlord Trait?
Does Anyone Know if Inquisitors *HAVE* To Take the Inquisition WTs?
Or Can they also take the BRB ones?
(If so, it means this is going to be the Next Best Thing to Servo Skulls, the Strategic and Tactical Traits Come to Mind)
yes this was my first thought. I'd take a roll or two on the Strategic table over servo skulls.
gungo wrote: While you guys are crying about how awful this codex is I'll be playing hector Rex leading an objective secured inquisitorial warband detschment with his 2++ rerollable save Casting sanctuary and hammerhand with a zealot, rerolling save priest, 2-3x crusaders with 2++ rerollables saves, 2-4x DCA with thier str6 ap3 x4 atks all for less then 500pts.
Death Cult are S4 and only have power swords. The power axe shenanigans people used before was blatant cheating and GW corrected the power weapon into power swords.
Death Cult = WS5 S4 I6 A2 - 2 Power Swords (4x S4 Ap3 attacks on charge) Arco Flagellant = WS5 S5 I3 A3 - 2 Arco-flais (5x S5 Ap- attacks on charge) Crusader = WS4 S3 I3 A1 - Power Sword and Storm Shield (2x S3 Ap3 attacks on charge) Sisters Repentia = WS4 S3 I1 A2 - Chain Fist for S6 Ap2 (4x S6 Ap2 attacks on charge due to Rage)
oldzoggy wrote: Cool and all as an allied option but I prefer my old book to make the core of my army from the look of it. Having to buy 1 Inq per henchmen squad just seems a bit odd.
You don't have to, it's just the way this particular formation works.
And overall the book seems to be about ways you can ally in these forces.
The more I see of it the more I suspect the digital sororitas and inquisition books still apply.
gungo wrote: While you guys are crying about how awful this codex is I'll be playing hector Rex leading an objective secured inquisitorial warband detschment with his 2++ rerollable save Casting sanctuary and hammerhand with a zealot, rerolling save priest, 2-3x crusaders with 2++ rerollables saves, 2-4x DCA with thier str6 ap3 x4 atks all for less then 500pts.
Death Cult are S4 and only have power swords. The power axe shenanigans people used before was blatant cheating and GW corrected the power weapon into power swords.
Hector Rex is an inqusitor who automatically gets hammerhand and a few other psychic powers such as sanctuary +1 invul. Hammerhand is +2 str.
gungo wrote: While you guys are crying about how awful this codex is I'll be playing hector Rex leading an objective secured inquisitorial warband detschment with his 2++ rerollable save Casting sanctuary and hammerhand with a zealot, rerolling save priest, 2-3x crusaders with 2++ rerollables saves, 2-4x DCA with thier str6 ap3 x4 atks all for less then 500pts.
Death Cult are S4 and only have power swords. The power axe shenanigans people used before was blatant cheating and GW corrected the power weapon into power swords.
And where exactly are you getting ObSec from? Certainly not from the Warband.
gungo wrote: While you guys are crying about how awful this codex is I'll be playing hector Rex leading an objective secured inquisitorial warband detschment with his 2++ rerollable save Casting sanctuary and hammerhand with a zealot, rerolling save priest, 2-3x crusaders with 2++ rerollables saves, 2-4x DCA with thier str6 ap3 x4 atks all for less then 500pts.
Death Cult are S4 and only have power swords. The power axe shenanigans people used before was blatant cheating and GW corrected the power weapon into power swords.
Death Cult = WS5 S4 I6 A2 - 2 Power Swords (4x S4 Ap3 attacks on charge)
Arco Flagellant = WS5 S5 I3 A3 - 2 Arco-flais (5x S5 Ap- attacks on charge)
Crusader = WS4 S3 I3 A1 - Power Sword and Storm Shield (2x S3 Ap3 attacks on charge)
Sisters Repentia = WS4 S3 I3 A2 - Chain Fist for S6 Ap2 (4x S6 Ap2 attacks on charge due to Rage)
Glad you can read now add +2 str from hammerhand to the entire unit.
+1 invul from sanctuary
Reroll armour saves from priest
And possibly canticles from the enginseer.
gungo wrote: While you guys are crying about how awful this codex is I'll be playing hector Rex leading an objective secured inquisitorial warband detschment with his 2++ rerollable save Casting sanctuary and hammerhand with a zealot, rerolling save priest, 2-3x crusaders with 2++ rerollables saves, 2-4x DCA with thier str6 ap3 x4 atks all for less then 500pts.
Death Cult are S4 and only have power swords. The power axe shenanigans people used before was blatant cheating and GW corrected the power weapon into power swords.
And where exactly are you getting ObSec from? Certainly not from the Warband.
Hi there my name is hector Rex and my warlord trait is immovable object which says I can control and contest objectives.
Versatilebeats wrote: 0-1 DCA in the profile for dca squad size is 2 with the option of up to 8 more for the unit so the war and can have a max of 10 dca
I am sure the crusaders have a similar min/max unit size
Btw with militant arm bringing a battle sisters squad in your warband nets up to 20 sob
But those really couldn't board their immolator ;-)
But you're correct - it's literally just the regular unit, so the same applies to the other guys.
DW Veterans in a Blackstar, anyone? Or Drop Podding?
I'm going to order that book now, damnit.
Well damn if your warband was big enough you could have your acolytes bring the rhinos, the dca the immolators, astropath a plane etc etc you'd have 1 huge unit with a lot of dedicated transports that no one could actually ride in.
gungo wrote: Hi there my name is hector Rex and my warlord trait is immovable object which says I can control and contest objectives.
Thanks for providing that answer - I'm not that familiar with Forgeworld Unique Characters. Does being able to control and contest objectives translate to ObSec or to Scoring? I'm asking because your answer sounds more like he's from 6ths Edition and a Scoring unit, not actual ObSec.
Versatilebeats wrote: Well damn if your warband was big enough you could have your acolytes bring the rhinos, the dca the immolators, astropath a plane etc etc you'd have 1 huge unit with a lot of dedicated transports that no one could actually ride in.
Well pick something shooty like Immolators to go empty, slap your warband inside a Landraider and have the Chamber Militant come in in their own appropriate transport - empty Rhinos would be useless, though.
It would depend on what options the other parts of the Warband get - if the Crusaders and Flagellants get Immolators, too - well, they're not too shabby on their own I'd say.
gungo wrote: While you guys are crying about how awful this codex is I'll be playing hector Rex leading an objective secured inquisitorial warband detschment with his 2++ rerollable save Casting sanctuary and hammerhand with a zealot, rerolling save priest, 2-3x crusaders with 2++ rerollables saves, 2-4x DCA with thier str6 ap3 x4 atks all for less then 500pts.
Death Cult are S4 and only have power swords. The power axe shenanigans people used before was blatant cheating and GW corrected the power weapon into power swords.
Hector Rex is an inqusitor who automatically gets hammerhand and a few other psychic powers such as sanctuary +1 invul. Hammerhand is +2 str.
If that's the case why not just put him in the new Inquisitorial formation. That way you can have 10 Crusaders, 10 Arco, 10 Death Cult, and a whole lot of shooty stuff.
Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?
MadCowCrazy wrote: Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?
It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".
MadCowCrazy wrote: Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?
It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".
Are you sure? It says 1 unit of Acolytes, 0-1 priests, 0-1 Crusaders, 0-6 Daemonhosts, 0-1 arco and death, 0-1 Tech Priest Enginseer, 0-6 Jokaero, 0-1 Astropath.
Does this mean I can put 36 Daemonhosts or Jokaero into the unit?
MadCowCrazy wrote: Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?
It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".
Are you sure? It says 1 unit of Acolytes, 0-1 priests, 0-1 Crusaders, 0-6 Daemonhosts, 0-1 arco and death, 0-1 Tech Priest Enginseer, 0-6 Jokaero, 0-1 Astropath.
Does this mean I can put 36 Daemonhosts or Jokaero into the unit?
We only know of the DCAs, they're 2-10. I assume that Crusaders and Flagellants are similar, so probably also 2-10.
I assume that the others are units of 1 model, so you'd end up with 0-6 Jokaeros, but 2-10 Crusaders. But I'm just guessing here, I don't have the full codex.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: Do we know how many Acolytes must be taken before adding the 'henchmen' to the cluster?
Sadly no - I haven't seen the Acolytes unit entry at all yet :( It's the one thing really missing , but if you look at the wargear tables it doesn't seem like they've changed much (including Plasma guns still being cheap) - so I assume they're either 3-12 (as before) or maybe 2-10 just like the DCAs.
Sabotage! wrote: I would love to see (or even hear about ) the Acolytes data slate as well. I don't think any of the reviewers have remotely touched upon it, and It does kind of form the core of most Inquisition armies. I want to know if I'm still stuck paying more than a space marine for a bog standard guardsman with storm trooper gear.
Take a look at the wargear list - they've cut in half the armour prices (Carapace 2, Power Armour 5) - so assuming Acolytes are still 4 points base that'll mean:
Marine: 14 points with a Boltgun, 29 with a Plasma gun
Acolyte with PA + Plasma gun = 19 points
Acolyte with PA + Boltgun = 10 points
The Marine will have a Bolt Pistol and the Acolyte would be stuck with a Las Pistol, but that's not really relevant I think.
Guardsman: 5 points with a Lasgun, 20 with a Plasma gun
Acolyte with Flak + Boltgun = 5 points
Acolyte with Flak + Plasma gun = 14 points
This time the Acolyte has the sidearm advantage - he's still got the Laspistol but again: not really relevant.
Guard Veteran Grenadier: 7.5 points with a Lasgun and +1 BS, 22.5 points with a Plasma gun
Acolyte with Carapace + Boltgun = 7 points
Acolyte with Carapace + Plasma gun = 16 points
Tempestus Scion: 12 with Hot-Shot Lasgun, 27 with a Plasma Gun and +1 BS, Deep Strike
Acolyte with Carapace + Hot-Shot Lasgun = 11 points
Acolyte with Carapace + Plasma-Gun = 14 points
So they're pretty well-off and have the edge on Plasma guns I'd say.Flamers are still overpriced at 10 points.
Looks like Power Armoured Plasma guns are the way to go here, and maybe Carapace Boltguns as a cheap way to get a lot of dakka out there.
I didn't see that they cut carapace from 4 points, nice catch. I was under the impression that an additional marine (Added to a combat squad which contains a sergeant) was 12 points, though it has been a long time since I have played any marines. The GK iteration (and the one carried into Codex Inquisition) of "Inquisitional stormtroopers (AKA Acolytes)" was 13 points for a acolyte with a hot-shot and carapace. Pretty awful value. Either way not having access to Scions as a choice, or being forced to take 11 point henchmen similarly equipped (I think acolytes don't have krak grenades...but I don't have the book on hand) acolytes which are very inferior to Scions (whom, from my knowledge are regarded pretty negatively anyways) is disheartening. I am again stuck in a situation where my Codex Witch Hunter (that was all Inq stuff, no SoB) army is invalidated. To make matters a bit worse, my current Inq codex kill team is also being invalidated, as I'd need to take a formation to obtain all the units in it.
I'll wait to see the book to make my final call, but as it looks I'm boxing away my 40k stuff and just sticking to 30k, as my haven't been able to field my favorite army since the Witch Hunter book was viable.
So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
Most Inquisitors don't wear Power Armour let alone articifer armour. It does make sense though that many players would feel Power armour for Inquisitors is the norm if they only play tabletop and not any of the RPGs or Inquisitor game. This is especially true as most of the 40k ones have been 'battlefield' inquisitors, more Coteaz and power armour wearing male and female Inquisitors and less Gideon Lorr. The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous. I dont know of any Inquisitors, to my knowledge, sporting more than one personal field device.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
I recall it being stated that each Ordo has unique relics. Hoping it's not just the three different books
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
Most Inquisitors don't wear Power Armour let alone articifer armour. It does make sense though that many players would feel Power armour for Inquisitors is the norm if they only play tabletop and not any of the RPGs or Inquisitor game. This is especially true as most of the 40k ones have been 'battlefield' inquisitors, more Coteaz and power armour wearing male and female Inquisitors and less Gideon Lorr. The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous.
If an Inqusitior really wants artifcer armour - he / she can get it
Inquisitors in the BL novels and in the main game fluff have all sorts of cool stuff and indeed as you say often use forcefields as they are easy concealed. So they really should have access to them in game - no idea why they don't.
Inquisitor Kallus wrote: The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous.
And for several iterations of inquisition codex the have not been able to get any force fields.Skitarii alphas can get force fields, IG officers have force fields, even simple missionaries have them. And yet the most influential agents of the Emperor, who can commandeer battleships, cannot requisition any sort of a force field!
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
Most Inquisitors don't wear Power Armour let alone articifer armour. It does make sense though that many players would feel Power armour for Inquisitors is the norm if they only play tabletop and not any of the RPGs or Inquisitor game. This is especially true as most of the 40k ones have been 'battlefield' inquisitors, more Coteaz and power armour wearing male and female Inquisitors and less Gideon Lorr. The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous.
If an Inqusitior really wants artifcer armour - he / she can get it
Inquisitors in the BL novels and in the main game fluff have all sorts of cool stuff and indeed as you say often use forcefields as they are easy concealed. So they really should have access to them in game - no idea why they don't.
But, that's not most or all Inquisitors, mainly the more legendary ones. If an Inquisitor really wants power armour he or she can get it? Thats like saying they can grant Exterminatus at the drop of a hat! ( I exaggerate)
Power armour is not mass produced, and certainly not common amongst humans. Power armour is rare, easily spotted, cumbersome (humans dont have black carapace interface or a number of other things incorporated into the much larger astartes PA) Power armour is generally made to fit unless you are luck enough to find a suit that fits you and can take many years to produce, least of which having the means and the authority to get it made in the first place. Articifer armour is on another level completely.
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
Most Inquisitors don't wear Power Armour let alone articifer armour. It does make sense though that many players would feel Power armour for Inquisitors is the norm if they only play tabletop and not any of the RPGs or Inquisitor game. This is especially true as most of the 40k ones have been 'battlefield' inquisitors, more Coteaz and power armour wearing male and female Inquisitors and less Gideon Lorr. The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous. I dont know of any Inquisitors, to my knowledge, sporting more than one personal field device.
Amberley Vail used power armor once in the Cain books, to clear out a genestealer nest. But most of the time she wouldn't.
Inquisitor Kallus wrote: The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous.
And for several iterations of inquisition codex the have not been able to get any force fields.Skitarii alphas can get force fields, IG officers have force fields, even simple missionaries have them. And yet the most influential agents of the Emperor, who can commandeer battleships, cannot requisition any sort of a force field!
Indeed, I am not saying they should not be able to get one, it is a shame they cannot in some way. Even something like a refractor field would be ok in my eyes, though its a shame when I hear of certain pieces of wargear becoming 'must-haves'
I'm not sure I am understanding your thread of conversation. Inquisitor Kallus, can you explain or point out the sources you are using for your information?
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
Most Inquisitors don't wear Power Armour let alone articifer armour. It does make sense though that many players would feel Power armour for Inquisitors is the norm if they only play tabletop and not any of the RPGs or Inquisitor game. This is especially true as most of the 40k ones have been 'battlefield' inquisitors, more Coteaz and power armour wearing male and female Inquisitors and less Gideon Lorr. The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous. I dont know of any Inquisitors, to my knowledge, sporting more than one personal field device.
Amberley Vail used power armor once in the Cain books, to clear out a genestealer nest. But most of the time she wouldn't.
Indeed, unfortunately the 'game' is where it counts and most players generally wont think twice about taking something like power armour etc. If we look at Inquisitor only one human had power armour from the ready made characters. It would be nice to see different types of inquisitors within the ordo categories that gave other advantages or disadvantages for taking certain wargear etc but 40k is what it is
Something I really been struggling to follow. Dose this book replace the digital inquisition and sisters of battle digital codexes? dose this book replace the current grey knights codex?
Grot 6 wrote: I'm not sure I am understanding your thread of conversation. Inquisitor Kallus, can you explain or point out the sources you are using for your information?
Dark Heresy, Eisenhorn trilogy etc. Jaq Draco and 2nd ed tended to set a tone however, with the Inquisitor being able to take Terminator armour as well but back then he was an absolute beast in a ridiculous way. If you read the FFG books you will find out a lot more about how Inquisitors generally go about their business and outright war is quite a rare occurence, though it does happen (as in the 40kTT). Generally only very high ranking Inquisitors (Lords) or in your face prolific activists like monodominants who are wanting to put across a point or are highly active in the field of war will wear power armour. It really is not easy to maintain and can be quite a burden (particularly if the power runs out at an inopportune moment)
Lockark wrote: Something I really been struggling to follow. Dose this book replace the digital inquisition and sisters of battle digital codexes? dose this book replace the current grey knights codex?
Lockark wrote: Something I really been struggling to follow. Dose this book replace the digital inquisition and sisters of battle digital codexes? dose this book replace the current grey knights codex?
Because itshe starting to sound like it doesn't.
GWFB says it does. And our local TO and group have said they're going with that, just for a bit of a personal anecdote.
Lockark wrote: Something I really been struggling to follow. Dose this book replace the digital inquisition and sisters of battle digital codexes? dose this book replace the current grey knights codex?
It is not a comment on the INQ book its only about the Sisters book, also there is a lot of flak on the message, that seemed too casually posted by a customer service agent who might not have expected the impact of this message. They did not respond after the flak nor did they react to the inq part.
I made a post with the SS off Facebook that says it updates and replaces the sob/as book. Naturally this would the case for everything in the book, not including DW and GK as units are requested by an inquisitor from them.
They will more than likely keep selling digital books until the holidays are over, otherwise they will address because of the rage and keep selling them, back peddling.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ps Someone wanna math hammer how many psykers I'll need to summon daemons now lol
That codex doesn't replace the armies. It is its own book. If you are playing those other armies, their books are the one you use, and more or less, the new ones will be in attachment status.
The rules in this eBook are also available in Codex: Imperial Agents, fully revised and updated along with new detachments plus rules for adding even more servants of the Emperor to your army.
As posted earlier.
Note they only mention "also available" instead of "replaces." That implies to me at least that they are both legal.
I think either the ebb poke will be updated to match the revised rules or go the way of the dodo.
As it stands it makes little sense why the inquisition changes would be justified simply because they restructured it so you could possibly add in a special group or sisters, DW, or gk..
Sure there is a change to warbands and lack of skulls..but on the upswing you get a warlord trait, tdainq can use daemon swords, also specific psk powers for each Ordo, and it's possible the inclusion of said special squad allows access to that type of transport.
Going back and using the ebook to use it on its own would be weird, then the inq lost all the above when it was clearly done to ratify things.
Don't models from the same codex get to use their own transports? This is one Codex, right? So shouldn't everybody get to deploy in everybody's transports?
Eppelwhat wrote: Don't models from the same codex get to use their own transports? This is one Codex, right? So shouldn't everybody get to deploy in everybody's transports?
However his psychic powers were changed later on to sanctic: focus, banishment, sanctuary and hammerhand. As noted He is an inqusitor character so perils is an issue.
So kinda a funny thing I was thinking of.... Since the Valkyries can be now taken as a imperial Navy Detachment, dose this mean you could do a army of Grav-chuteing Sisters of Battle? lol
Eppelwhat wrote: Don't models from the same codex get to use their own transports? This is one Codex, right? So shouldn't everybody get to deploy in everybody's transports?
No. It's not the same codex, it's the same faction that matters.
Eppelwhat wrote: Don't models from the same codex get to use their own transports? This is one Codex, right? So shouldn't everybody get to deploy in everybody's transports?
No. It's not the same codex, it's the same faction that matters.
I was under the impression that was defined by the Codex.
"In the case of older publications, the Faction of all units described in the codex is the same as the codex's title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units described in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of."
This is a new codex, not a supplement, right? So the Faction (capital F) is "Imperial Agents." Right?
Aww, nuts. Wrong. The leak shows different "factions." No Valkyries for the Deathwatch.
Lanlaorn wrote: No Valkyries for anyone, unless someone we haven't seen yet allows it. It's a pretty dumb set up.
The book itself is just sounding more and more like a jumbled mess. It has gone from Likely Buy to EFF NO! for me. At this point, I would only get it to have print rules for my Assassins and have an alternate way to use my Deathwatch.
Can anyone tell me if the Repressor transport is now invalid as a S.O.B transport? It would really suck that after all that time ebay hunting for the conversion kit. Finally painting it, that now i cant even use it. Would really suck
Twoshoes23 wrote: Can anyone tell me if the Repressor transport is now invalid as a S.O.B transport? It would really suck that after all that time ebay hunting for the conversion kit. Finally painting it, that now i cant even use it. Would really suck
Isn't the Repressor a Forgeworld kit? If so, it won't be covered in this book.
However his psychic powers were changed later on to sanctic: focus, banishment, sanctuary and hammerhand. As noted He is an inqusitor character so perils is an issue.
thanks for this link. This PDF says those inquisitors are HQ choices for Grey Knight armies. Was there another FAQ making them Inquisition?
Lanlaorn wrote: No Valkyries for anyone, unless someone we haven't seen yet allows it. It's a pretty dumb set up.
Then what is in the aeronautica imperialis section in the table of content?
Valkyries and Officer of the Fleet, everything in the codex has it's own faction and ally using the rules from the BRB as Battle Brothers.
What this means is that you can take as many Valkyries as you want but the only thing you can start in them are the Officers of the Fleet as you can't start the game in an allied transport. So the best you can do is come in turn 2, pick up a unit, fly forwards on turn 3, drop off the unit, if it is still there charge on turn 4.
This codex is a garbled mess, I was expecting so much more since codicies up to this point have been really good. This is just a half assed compilation of things with not thought put into...
MadCowCrazy wrote: What this means is that you can take as many Valkyries as you want but the only thing you can start in them are the Officers of the Fleet as you can't start the game in an allied transport. So the best you can do is come in turn 2, pick up a unit, fly forwards on turn 3, drop off the unit, if it is still there charge on turn 4.
I'd say that they should have included a formation rule that allows, oh I dunno, anything save 4+ or worse to start in an allied Valk taken from this book.
But then I'd be advocating yet another special rule be added to a game that has a few hundred special rules it doesn't need.
This book sounds like a disappointing piece of trash, coming from a sisters of battle player. I'm just going to keep using my digital book and skip this release... I'm also buying my Grishnak sisters. GW is not earning my money like this.
JB_Man wrote: This book sounds like a disappointing piece of trash, coming from a sisters of battle player. I'm just going to keep using my digital book and skip this release... I'm also buying my Grishnak sisters. GW is not earning my money like this.
I'd like to, but if GW says this replaces the digital, we don't have much choice.
Anyone had a chance to debunk the leaked decurion and auxillary formations for Sisters listed on Blood of Kittens in their "leaks" section?
Here's a spoiler for reference.
Spoiler:
Sisters of Battle
Ministorum Delegation: Lets you pair a leader with a bodyguard. Must be from Adepta Sororitas faction. Grants both Shield of Faith.
Army of Faith: Improved prayer (Shield of Faith?)
Fury of Angels
Celestians + Seraphim
Seraphim DS without scatter on celestians and can assault with them
Angelic Host
2-5 Seraphim
Seraphim get +1 SOF and friendlies within 12″ reroll SOF
Forward Crusade
3-6 Dominions
Half infiltrate on foot, other half outflank in immolator and may choose to come in on the side closest to one of the other squads
Wrath Squadron
3-6 Retributers
AoF also grants Relentless. Flamers gain torrent
The Penitent Host
2-6 Repentia
4+ FNP and AoF grabts fleet and allows a charge from anywhere
Hammer of Wrath
2 Exorcists
Roll 2d6 pick highest, apply to both
Purge Squadron
3-6 Immolators with same weapon
Squadron
Flamers get +1S
HB get Rending
MM get tank Hunter
Emperors Hate – Core
Canoness
Command Squad
Celestian Squad
Battle Sisters
Retributers
Must take immolator
Grants ObSec and double AoF
Crusade of Daughters – Core
20 Battle Sisters
May take 5 special and 5 heavy weapons
AoF – pick Doms or Rets AoF
Hymns of War – Decurion
Reroll WL No AoF test
Stubborn
JB_Man wrote: This book sounds like a disappointing piece of trash, coming from a sisters of battle player. I'm just going to keep using my digital book and skip this release... I'm also buying my Grishnak sisters. GW is not earning my money like this.
I'd like to, but if GW says this replaces the digital, we don't have much choice.
Anyone had a chance to debunk the leaked decurion and auxillary formations for Sisters listed on Blood of Kittens in their "leaks" section?
Here's a spoiler for reference.
Spoiler:
Sisters of Battle
Ministorum Delegation: Lets you pair a leader with a bodyguard. Must be from Adepta Sororitas faction. Grants both Shield of Faith.
Army of Faith: Improved prayer (Shield of Faith?)
Fury of Angels
Celestians + Seraphim
Seraphim DS without scatter on celestians and can assault with them
Angelic Host
2-5 Seraphim
Seraphim get +1 SOF and friendlies within 12″ reroll SOF
Forward Crusade
3-6 Dominions
Half infiltrate on foot, other half outflank in immolator and may choose to come in on the side closest to one of the other squads
Wrath Squadron
3-6 Retributers
AoF also grants Relentless. Flamers gain torrent
The Penitent Host
2-6 Repentia
4+ FNP and AoF grabts fleet and allows a charge from anywhere
Hammer of Wrath
2 Exorcists
Roll 2d6 pick highest, apply to both
Purge Squadron
3-6 Immolators with same weapon
Squadron
Flamers get +1S
HB get Rending
MM get tank Hunter
Emperors Hate – Core
Canoness
Command Squad
Celestian Squad
Battle Sisters
Retributers
Must take immolator
Grants ObSec and double AoF
Crusade of Daughters – Core
20 Battle Sisters
May take 5 special and 5 heavy weapons
AoF – pick Doms or Rets AoF
Hymns of War – Decurion
Reroll WL No AoF test
Stubborn
We've seen a table of contents for the whole book that discredits that whole list. Ministorum Delegation and Army of Faith are in- and mediocre at best- rest of the list is fake. The Delegation is especially awful. Who does it benefit?
I imagine they will pull the Inq and sisters e-books on Saturday when this turd is officially released, if this doesn't happen I will consider both valid.
I don't understand why you would remove Celestine, though. She was so iconic, and so powerful. The book really needed an assault unit that wasn't a total piece of trash, and she filled a lot of roles.
Eppelwhat wrote: Don't models from the same codex get to use their own transports? This is one Codex, right? So shouldn't everybody get to deploy in everybody's transports?
Yeah but those valks are of the navy faction and the rest of an other book =/= faction ; )
We've seen a table of contents for the whole book that discredits that whole list. Ministorum Delegation and Army of Faith are in- and mediocre at best- rest of the list is fake. The Delegation is especially awful. Who does it benefit?
INQ players who want their non acylote infested henchman squads back. Also any imperial player who wants to have a priest.
JB_Man wrote: This book sounds like a disappointing piece of trash, coming from a sisters of battle player. I'm just going to keep using my digital book and skip this release... I'm also buying my Grishnak sisters. GW is not earning my money like this.
I'd like to, but if GW says this replaces the digital, we don't have much choice.
Anyone had a chance to debunk the leaked decurion and auxillary formations for Sisters listed on Blood of Kittens in their "leaks" section?
Here's a spoiler for reference.
Spoiler:
Sisters of Battle
Ministorum Delegation: Lets you pair a leader with a bodyguard. Must be from Adepta Sororitas faction. Grants both Shield of Faith.
Army of Faith: Improved prayer (Shield of Faith?)
Fury of Angels
Celestians + Seraphim
Seraphim DS without scatter on celestians and can assault with them
Angelic Host
2-5 Seraphim
Seraphim get +1 SOF and friendlies within 12″ reroll SOF
Forward Crusade
3-6 Dominions
Half infiltrate on foot, other half outflank in immolator and may choose to come in on the side closest to one of the other squads
Wrath Squadron
3-6 Retributers
AoF also grants Relentless. Flamers gain torrent
The Penitent Host
2-6 Repentia
4+ FNP and AoF grabts fleet and allows a charge from anywhere
Hammer of Wrath
2 Exorcists
Roll 2d6 pick highest, apply to both
Purge Squadron
3-6 Immolators with same weapon
Squadron
Flamers get +1S
HB get Rending
MM get tank Hunter
Emperors Hate – Core
Canoness
Command Squad
Celestian Squad
Battle Sisters
Retributers
Must take immolator
Grants ObSec and double AoF
Crusade of Daughters – Core
20 Battle Sisters
May take 5 special and 5 heavy weapons
AoF – pick Doms or Rets AoF
Hymns of War – Decurion
Reroll WL No AoF test
Stubborn
We've seen a table of contents for the whole book that discredits that whole list. Ministorum Delegation and Army of Faith are in- and mediocre at best- rest of the list is fake. The Delegation is especially awful. Who does it benefit?
Then mabey its for the sister codex, thats still being rumored for Q1 2017
However his psychic powers were changed later on to sanctic: focus, banishment, sanctuary and hammerhand. As noted He is an inqusitor character so perils is an issue.
Thanks! However that says he's just Scoring, not ObSec.
MadCowCrazy wrote: Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?
It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".
The Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband is 1 "unit" of Acolytes and for all other models, it's 0-1 model, not 0-1 "unit" of Models.... this means you can only have 1 of each models as stated on the new FAQ.
FAQ Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.
The datasheet picture clearly shows multiple assassins, acoflagellants and crusaders.....
It's because DCA (and probably Crusaders too) are a 2 models unit (with option to buy 8 more)... since their blister come in pack of 2. Arco-flagellants will probably be a 3 models unit (as in the picture) with option to buy probably 6-9 more) since they come in blisters of 3....
But as for the FAQ ruling, you won't be able to buy more models in the formation.
This is probably why you also get 0-6 Daemonhosts (because they'll probably come as 1-model unit with options to buy more)....
MadCowCrazy wrote: Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?
It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".
The Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband is 1 "unit" of Acolytes and for all other models, it's 0-1 model, not 0-1 "unit" of Models.... this means you can only have 1 of each models as stated on the new FAQ.
FAQ Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.
The datasheet picture clearly shows multiple assassins, acoflagellants and crusaders.....
It's because DCA (and probably Crusaders too) are a 2 models unit (with option to buy 8 more)... since their blister come in pack of 2. Arco-flagellants will probably be a 3 models unit (as in the picture) with option to buy probably 6-9 more) since they come in blisters of 3....
But as for the FAQ ruling, you won't be able to buy more models in the formation.
This is probably why you also get 0-6 Daemonhosts (because they'll probably come as 1-model unit with options to buy more)....
The question is very specific and was answered on that basis. The entry in question used the name of the model "1 Tomb Spyder" instead of the units actual name, and the question was whether you could just assume that that meant that you could also pick the entire unit (of 1-3 Tomb Spyders). The core rules are still in effect however, and they tell you that what's listed in a Formation are units, not models. The FAQ simply adds to that that if for some reason there's a model listed instead of the unit, you can't just swap that out. It's not redefining how Formations work - so it's not saying "unless there's a [unit of] or [squadron of] in there it's a model 100% of the time".
I can see why you'd read it differently, though. The FAQ entry is worded very badly.
The footnote also thinks they're units. "These units must form a single unit with this Formation's unit of Acolytes". Not "models".
It seems you can even take a single crusader or dca since they start with two models and go up.
I was hoping crusaders and dca were going to be wolf guard style units were you could break the squad up into IC's to attach to other units. Doesn't sound like this is the case.
MadCowCrazy wrote: Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?
It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".
The Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband is 1 "unit" of Acolytes and for all other models, it's 0-1 model, not 0-1 "unit" of Models.... this means you can only have 1 of each models as stated on the new FAQ.
FAQ Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.
The datasheet picture clearly shows multiple assassins, acoflagellants and crusaders.....
It's because DCA (and probably Crusaders too) are a 2 models unit (with option to buy 8 more)... since their blister come in pack of 2. Arco-flagellants will probably be a 3 models unit (as in the picture) with option to buy probably 6-9 more) since they come in blisters of 3....
But as for the FAQ ruling, you won't be able to buy more models in the formation.
This is probably why you also get 0-6 Daemonhosts (because they'll probably come as 1-model unit with options to buy more)....
The question is very specific and was answered on that basis. The entry in question used the name of the model "1 Tomb Spyder" instead of the units actual name, and the question was whether you could just assume that that meant that you could also pick the entire unit (of 1-3 Tomb Spyders). The core rules are still in effect however, and they tell you that what's listed in a Formation are units, not models. The FAQ simply adds to that that if for some reason there's a model listed instead of the unit, you can't just swap that out. It's not redefining how Formations work - so it's not saying "unless there's a [unit of] or [squadron of] in there it's a model 100% of the time".
I can see why you'd read it differently, though. The FAQ entry is worded very badly.
The footnote also thinks they're units. "These units must form a single unit with this Formation's unit of Acolytes". Not "models".
Well if it's really the case (which I think won't be the case), that would make a lot of Daemonhosts models in a unit (since 0-6 Daemonhosts with each Daemonhosts unit with let's say 3-6 model each)... A Daemonhost Horde Army.....
Pariah-Miniatures wrote: So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.
Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.
And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!
Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)
Most Inquisitors don't wear Power Armour let alone articifer armour. It does make sense though that many players would feel Power armour for Inquisitors is the norm if they only play tabletop and not any of the RPGs or Inquisitor game. This is especially true as most of the 40k ones have been 'battlefield' inquisitors, more Coteaz and power armour wearing male and female Inquisitors and less Gideon Lorr. The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous. I dont know of any Inquisitors, to my knowledge, sporting more than one personal field device.
Amberley Vail used power armor once in the Cain books, to clear out a genestealer nest. But most of the time she wouldn't.
40k table top is however simulating exactly the time when she would wear her armour, same is true of other Inquisitors - and if they were not wearing armour they would certainly have some kind of force field. And yet they are denied this.
We are not usually simulating the investigation but rather the reaction, the strike against the enemy and if the Inquisitor is coming along, he or she should make sure they are well protected - so best armour they can wear at the time and/or energy shields.
Otherwise you might as well not have them and instead have a model of them sipping tea aboard their orbiting ship watching the holo which is equally valid
Viper666 wrote: Well if it's really the case (which I think won't be the case), that would make a lot of Daemonhosts models in a unit (since 0-6 Daemonhosts with each Daemonhosts unit with let's say 3-6 model each)... A Daemonhost Horde Army.....
I expect Daemonhosts to be 1 model / unit , same for the Jokaero. But that's just a guess based on what "feels right" once you have a look at the final unit and compare it to the original one from C:Inq. Crusaders/DCAs/Arcos somewhere around 2-10 and the others 1 per unit, so 0-6 jokaeros, 0-1 priests and so on. IIRC you could have bought 12 Priests, but has anyone ever done that? one, MAYBE two made sense, but that's it.
While it's possible that Daemonhosts and Jokaero are 1 - 2 models (so they max out at 12 per retinue), from context they're probably single models. I can't see any reason you'd be able to include more of them than Crusaders etc.
Thommy H wrote: While it's possible that Daemonhosts and Jokaero are 1 - 2 models (so they max out at 12 per retinue), from context they're probably single models. I can't see any reason you'd be able to include more of them than Crusaders etc.
Yupp, that's my reasoning as well. We'll see what they came up with once we have the other pages available.
From the codex images posted on Faeit it shows Acolytes as a unit while everything else in the listing for the henchmen squad shows the number of models you can take. Whats a major facepalm is the lack of any Psykers in the unit and the 0-1 Death Cult Assassins which basically kills the Crusader Squad's melee power. Funny enough the picture for the Inq Henchmen Warband shows multiple Arco-Flagellants and Assassins despite both being listed as 0-1.
Seriously though this book is a trainwreck and its embarrassing how poorly done this book appears to be when compared to how good the traitor legions book is.
Vankraken wrote: From the codex images posted on Faeit it shows Acolytes as a unit while everything else in the listing for the henchmen squad shows the number of models you can take. Whats a major facepalm is the lack of any Psykers in the unit and the 0-1 Death Cult Assassins which basically kills the Crusader Squad's melee power. Funny enough the picture for the Inq Henchmen Warband shows multiple Arco-Flagellants and Assassins despite both being listed as 0-1.
.
Yes, because it's 0-1 Death Cult Assasins and Arco-Flagellants- it's the data sheet, not the model. And the data sheets allow 0-n models. The unit names could have been clearer but that's what it's referring to. I don't think this is the same as the "1 tomb spider" issue.
Key thing is the use of plurals. If it's 0 - 1 of a single model, it uses the singular (e.g. "0 - 1 Astropath"), but if it's 0 - 1 of a unit, they're plural (e.g. "0 - 1 Crusaders"). If more than one is allowed though, it's always plural so we can't be certain at this stage how those units are composed (but see inference outlined above).
In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.
Vankraken wrote: In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.
The formatting in the entry is consistent though. The Astropath is singular, while the DCAs aren't, for example. This is what you'd expect too - we know the DCAs run around in units and Astropaths tend to appear as (and be sold as, importantly...) lone advisors. Likewise all the other pluralised entries are for choices that would logically be units.
Applying Occam's Razor, it seems unlikley the henchmen unit would allow you to field only a single Crusader or Arco-flagellant alongside six Daemonhosts or Jokaero.
That means, however, that seeing as DCA's, and thus presumably crysaders amd flagelants, can be taken in units of 10, you could potentially have a henchman squad consisting of 32+ models...
Vankraken wrote: In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.
The formatting in the entry is consistent though. The Astropath is singular, while the DCAs aren't, for example. This is what you'd expect too - we know the DCAs run around in units and Astropaths tend to appear as (and be sold as, importantly...) lone advisors. Likewise all the other pluralised entries are for choices that would logically be units.
Applying Occam's Razor, it seems unlikley the henchmen unit would allow you to field only a single Crusader or Arco-flagellant alongside six Daemonhosts or Jokaero.
Actually I think your right but not because of the use of plurals but because of the page numbers. All the 0-1 stuff has page numbers in the 60s (datasheets I assume) while the 0-6 entries are in the 100s (probably not unit dataslates and probably in the back of the book). Again it is extremely unclear and they should of followed more logical formatting by listing "0-1 units of Crusaders". Even then RAW could be argued as being models as in the same listing and formatting it has Jokaero which probably don't have a unit entry. That being said these Henchman squads could get zogging huge if you can bring that many full size units and combine them into a super unit.
Vankraken wrote: In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.
The formatting in the entry is consistent though. The Astropath is singular, while the DCAs aren't, for example. This is what you'd expect too - we know the DCAs run around in units and Astropaths tend to appear as (and be sold as, importantly...) lone advisors. Likewise all the other pluralised entries are for choices that would logically be units.
Applying Occam's Razor, it seems unlikley the henchmen unit would allow you to field only a single Crusader or Arco-flagellant alongside six Daemonhosts or Jokaero.
Actually I think your right but not because of the use of plurals but because of the page numbers. All the 0-1 stuff has page numbers in the 60s (datasheets I assume) while the 0-6 entries are in the 100s (probably not unit dataslates and probably in the back of the book). Again it is extremely unclear and they should of followed more logical formatting by listing "0-1 units of Crusaders". Even then RAW could be argued as being models as in the same listing and formatting it has Jokaero which probably don't have a unit entry. That being said these Henchman squads could get zogging huge if you can bring that many full size units and combine them into a super unit.
It's not really unclear once you consider that the "1 model" thing is the special snowflake here. The basic rules tell you that it's a unit, period. Some formations call out specific models instead[they're exceptions], and that's where the FAQ applies that says you can't just replace such a special occurance with the whole unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nudibranch wrote: That means, however, that seeing as DCA's, and thus presumably crysaders amd flagelants, can be taken in units of 10, you could potentially have a henchman squad consisting of 32+ models...
Yupp. But is that a smart idea? No, not at all. So you're free to build it like that.
Honestly, RAI in my opinion, I personally think it's 0-1 models, not units. Otherwise the formation would have the DW killteam restriction where the combined unit can't exceed a certain mumber of models.
nudibranch wrote: Honestly, RAI in my opinion, I personally think it's 0-1 models, not units. Otherwise the formation would have the DW killteam restriction where the combined unit can't exceed a certain mumber of models.
Why does it need that?
Even applying your logic that unit can be 20 models big or something ridiculous. 6 Jokaero and Daemonhosts + Crusader + DCA + Priest + Astropath + Enginseer means you're looking at 17 models PLUS the entirely undisputed "unit of Acolytes" that might very well add another 10 models or more. I've probably even missed a model or two here.
There're units of 50 models and more in 40k already (e.g. Infantry Platoons using Combined Squads), so why exactly would being able to create a 30-40 model unit that's very much useless be a big deal?
Using them the way I think they work e.g. 1 Acolyte (wild assumption that that's the minimum), 7 DCAs, 7 Crusaders and 1 Priest is the max you'd probably do for a single squad since you still have to get these guys somewhere, and that's gonna take a transport. LR Crusaders have a capacity of 16, that's probably the biggest transport they can use.
And honestly - if you feel like footslogging a giant unit of 10 Crusaders, 10 Flagellants, 6 Daemonhosts, 10 DCAs and some Acolytes sprinkled on top of that - that's fine with me. Or any other ridiculous blob you could come up with that involves a ton of crusaders, Flagellants or DCAs.
All the shooty options are undisputed anyway, and those would be the only ones that might end up dangerous as a huge blob. 10 Crusaders in front of 6 Jokaero LasCans ? Meh. That's 150 points of Stormshields and (if price stayed the same) 210 points of monkeys. for 6 Laser Cannons hitting on 4+ that are somewhat tough to kill, unless you have Barrage Weapons. Or high volumes of S3+ dakka.
For the price of what, an Imperial Knight?
I'm 99% sure it's units. Consistency, precedent and logic all point in that direction. Again, you'd have to assume the intention is to allow only a single DCA (which are sold as a pair) while allowing up to six Jokaero (of which there is only one model, sold singly) to favour the other interpretation.
Rereading the leaked datasheet, I think I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction
Still think this is really strange from a fluff perspective. These aren't conscripts: they're the hand-picked retinue for one of the imperium's most important agents. Also miffed at no invulns for inquisitors outside of termi armour. Seriously, they have access to almost the entire imperial armoury, can requisition units of the Emperor's finests, have the sanctions to use ancient and prohibited wargear... but cam't take a bloody refractor field?!
I'm not sure GW should post stuff like this. If they don't plan to release plastic Sisters they should say so straight away. If they do, keep silence until the miniatures are ready and drum up interest shortly before release. Maybe they do already and this is their way? But it is getting kind of... annoying... to be honest.
nudibranch wrote: Still think this is really strange from a fluff perspective. These aren't conscripts: they're the hand-picked retinue for one of the imperium's most important agents.
Some, but not all. Arco flagellants are condemned men serving as cannon fodder in a fate worse than servitordome. Operating in groups is what sets death cult assassins apart from the other kinds.
In practice you won't see this used to run massive blob squads of everything running up the field to get pie-plated into oblivion, but carefully selected squads that can support each other. Monkeys behind a line of crusader shields, or assassins and flagellants charging out of a land raider and shocking everybody when they actually work.
Warhams-77 wrote: I'm unable to verify the post at the moment. I also do not tend to react emotionally to stuff like this as it would not change anything to the better
Screenshot by Markain on www.gw-fanworld.net - from 40kFB
I'm not sure GW should post stuff like this. If they don't plan to release plastic Sisters they should say so straight away. If they do, keep silence until the miniatures are ready and drum up interest shortly before release. Maybe they do already and this is their way? But it is getting kind of... annoying... to be honest.
Or they could get ahead of the backlash that just sitting silently and not addressing any of the issues people are raising would ferment and defuse it by saying that plastic sisters are coming and tell people when.
nudibranch wrote: Rereading the leaked datasheet, I think I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction
Still think this is really strange from a fluff perspective. These aren't conscripts: they're the hand-picked retinue for one of the imperium's most important agents. Also miffed at no invulns for inquisitors outside of termi armour. Seriously, they have access to almost the entire imperial armoury, can requisition units of the Emperor's finests, have the sanctions to use ancient and prohibited wargear... but cam't take a bloody refractor field?!
The CIA codex seems to be is the bare minimum of effort on the rules side - mostly copy paste with a few bits here and there adjusted, but no real thought on how to improve the units etc.
It would have made sense for the Inquisitors to have the full range of armour and fields but I doubt it occurred to anyone to make adjustments of that level even if tis fits the lore perfectly and would not make a major difference in game terms. It was probably slotted in between new Marine rules and the next actual supplement with models with a very finite limit of time to be spent.
Frankly I think the 'lazy' argument is jumping the gun a bit. Not giving them fields was a conscious decision when they first assembled the codex, and it's one I generally agree with: an Inquisitor on the field of battle should be something the player wants to protect, while you should be able to invest to make him more fighty, at the end of the day I don't think he can adhere broadly to the fluff and be the big bruiser of a death star.
Warhams-77 wrote: I'm unable to verify the post at the moment. I also do not tend to react emotionally to stuff like this as it would not change anything to the better
Screenshot by Markain on www.gw-fanworld.net - from 40kFB
I'm not sure GW should post stuff like this. If they don't plan to release plastic Sisters they should say so straight away. If they do, keep silence until the miniatures are ready and drum up interest shortly before release. Maybe they do already and this is their way? But it is getting kind of... annoying... to be honest.
I think people really need to have a sense of humor and some thicker skin.
Either they will come, or they will not but there is nothing wrong with GW taking a piss with the whole thing.
Warhams-77 wrote: I'm unable to verify the post at the moment. I also do not tend to react emotionally to stuff like this as it would not change anything to the better
Screenshot by Markain on www.gw-fanworld.net - from 40kFB
I'm not sure GW should post stuff like this. If they don't plan to release plastic Sisters they should say so straight away. If they do, keep silence until the miniatures are ready and drum up interest shortly before release. Maybe they do already and this is their way? But it is getting kind of... annoying... to be honest.
Or they could get ahead of the backlash that just sitting silently and not addressing any of the issues people are raising would ferment and defuse it by saying that plastic sisters are coming and tell people when.
What backlash?
The internet is a small minority of players of this game.
This book will come and go like a burp in the night.
Some will love it, some will hate it.
Two months from now nobody will be talking about it.
There is no backlash.
There may be people that believe that they are entitled to something, mistakenly mind you and they may feel that they will leverage this to force GW to say something but they would be mistaken.
This is a game of ups and downs, we live in their world and you either enjoy playing or it may be time to take a break until something comes along for you.
Remember, Sisters of Battle Adepta Sororitas can very easily become the next Tomb Kings/Lizard Men.
Captain Joystick wrote: Frankly I think the 'lazy' argument is jumping the gun a bit. Not giving them fields was a conscious decision when they first assembled the codex, and it's one I generally agree with: an Inquisitor on the field of battle should be something the player wants to protect, while you should be able to invest to make him more fighty, at the end of the day I don't think he can adhere broadly to the fluff and be the big bruiser of a death star.
I am not convinced it was a conscious decision at all.
re protecting them - Given that we are talking about models with T3 its not like they are incredibly durable with fields, it just makes them more lore friendly.
Inquisitors on the battlefield are normally extremely well equipped and understand all too well their own value.
There should be options to better reflect the sheer diversity of such people - the ability to make them better WS or BS, even other stats. Force fields is a absolute staple of Inquisitors in day to day life never mind when they are leading troops into battle.
nekooni wrote: So what you're saying is that Inquisitors basically are mobile force field generators, because that's how essential you make them out to be for them.
It'd be nice to have a bigger kit of equipment for Inquisitors, yes. We get it.
Whaaa..? We're arguing for inquisitors to have access to an invuln, not to turn them into mobile void shield generators or whatever you're implying. By 'force field' we mean refractor field, rosarius, conversion field etc. Personal protection systems that work in-game by giving the bearer an invuln.
nekooni wrote: So what you're saying is that Inquisitors basically are mobile force field generators, because that's how essential you make them out to be for them.
It'd be nice to have a bigger kit of equipment for Inquisitors, yes. We get it.
Really - that's twisting my words to a massive degree - I am saying that those Inquisitors that are on the battlefield are almost certain to have the best protection they can.
Perhaps you should read some of the fluff?
I get that you are happy with a half assed codex - well done.
For what it's worth, this is one of the first canonical descriptions of an Inquisitor and his standard equipment:
Spoiler:
He wears (skin-tight) power armor, a conversion field, a stasis field, and a refractor field! Inquisitors are supposed to have carte blanche when it comes to acquiring technology and requisitioning troops. Of course tech levels have been downgraded over time and almost every character in Rogue Trader was highly equipped with digital lasers and fields, but it's pretty crazy for a battlefield Inquisitor in a modern 40k setting not having access to things like artificer armor and energy fields, much less more esoteric equipment.
nekooni wrote: So what you're saying is that Inquisitors basically are mobile force field generators, because that's how essential you make them out to be for them.
It'd be nice to have a bigger kit of equipment for Inquisitors, yes. We get it.
Whaaa..? We're arguing for inquisitors to have access to an invuln, not to turn them into mobile void shield generators or whatever you're implying. By 'force field' we mean refractor field, rosarius, conversion field etc. Personal protection systems that work in-game by giving the bearer an invuln.
My point wasn't that you're asking for VSGs but that you're not arguing anything. you're just repeating ad nauseam that basically every Inquisitor should have an invuln save via some kind of personal shield and how bad the entire book is simply because Inquisitors do not have access to an invuln save since they should really have access to invuln saves as they're very well known to require protection via invuln saves, especially since most of them in the fluff have invuln saves and they - as inquisitors - should have access to all the best equipment, especially invuln saves.
I don't consider this book "failed" because of one piece of equipment still not being in there. sorry.
nekooni wrote: So what you're saying is that Inquisitors basically are mobile force field generators, because that's how essential you make them out to be for them.
It'd be nice to have a bigger kit of equipment for Inquisitors, yes. We get it.
Whaaa..? We're arguing for inquisitors to have access to an invuln, not to turn them into mobile void shield generators or whatever you're implying. By 'force field' we mean refractor field, rosarius, conversion field etc. Personal protection systems that work in-game by giving the bearer an invuln.
My point wasn't that you're asking for VSGs but that you're not arguing anything. you're just repeating ad nauseam that basically every Inquisitor should have an invuln save via some kind of personal shield and how bad the entire book is simply because Inquisitors do not have access to an invuln save since they should really have access to invuln saves as they're very well known to require protection via invuln saves, especially since most of them in the fluff have invuln saves and they - as inquisitors - should have access to all the best equipment, especially invuln saves.
I don't consider this book "failed" because of one piece of equipment still not being in there. sorry.
Nope IMO thus far the book has "failed" because: (and I was really looking forward to this)
St Celestine has gone and the update of the Sisters is lazy and without any apparent effort or interest - see the pathetic detachments that they have and then look at any recent dex.
Same with the Inquisition Codex - the lack of invulnerable saves for Inquisitors is simply showing how little time and attention has been paid.
The various Factions remain in place and so the whole cool idea of the Inquisitor with weird and wonderful units, again using his or her influence to travel in whatever vehicle they like - is not possible.
And that's just the issues from what we currently know - imagine how much disappointing it will be when we know more.
In particular what exactly is your reason for Inquisitors not to have invulnerable saves? I can't see how its especially powerful - especially compared to what power dexes get and its totally in tune with the lore.
St Celestine has gone and the update of the Sisters is lazy and without any apparent effort or interest.
Well they did get some new things, and yes - Celestine being gone is a real shame.
Same with the Inquisition Codex - the lack of invulnerable saves for Inquisitors is simply showing how little attention has been paid.
Again - it's all about that one stupid invuln save, really?
The various Factions remain in place and so the whole idea of eh Inquisitor with weird and wonderful units, again using his or her influence to travel in whatever vehicle they like - is not possible.
From what I can tell he's able to ride in any transport provided through their formation. That's a ton of vehicles.
And that's just the issues from what we currently know - imagine how much disappointing it will be when we know more.
Yes, the sky might be falling - or not.
In particular What exactly is you reason for Inquisitors not to have invulnerable saves? I can't see how its especially powerful - especially compared to what power dexes get and its totally in tune with the lore.
Please point me to a single line where I said that Inquisitors shouldn't have invulnerable saves. I've never said that, so why exactly do you think I have to explain myself on that topic in any way? I have no clue why GW decided to not give Inquisitors a refractor field. I simply don't think it's as big a deal as you clearly do. *edit* While repeatedly claiming how it's not a big deal at all since it wouldn't make them powerful anyway (which I agree with as long as the points cost are appropiate).
I don't consider this book "failed" because of one piece of equipment still not being in there. sorry.
I agree that the book hasn't failed due to Inquisitors not being able to have access to more equipment.
I will point out how I think the book has failed though (and this is barring any commentary on Sisters - as I'm not familiar enough with their previous iteration).
1. I can no longer play my Inquisition Kill Team due to the new formatting of the henchmen squad.
2. I still can't play my Witch Hunter army that I used in fifth.
3. I can no longer really use the Inquisition Valkyrie I put together,
So, while I think not adding something new to a faction is not "failing," I would argue that taking things away and invalidating how people use their armies is "failing" pretty hard. I am going to reserve final judgement until I know the whole deal with the book, but as it stands this book has me boxing away my 40k until 8th edition comes out and I can see what it's like.
And here I thought the Tau Battleforce formation was rather useless...moving a single squad 6" at the start of a turn. Sure it's probably got it's uses to keep markerlights going from pathfinders and such..but c'mon GW.
BUT..that sister formation is just so much worse. At least make it every turn so it makes up for losing ObSec
St Celestine has gone and the update of the Sisters is lazy and without any apparent effort or interest.
Well they did get some new things, and yes - Celestine being gone is a real shame.
Same with the Inquisition Codex - the lack of invulnerable saves for Inquisitors is simply showing how little attention has been paid.
Again - it's all about that one stupid invuln save, really?
The various Factions remain in place and so the whole idea of eh Inquisitor with weird and wonderful units, again using his or her influence to travel in whatever vehicle they like - is not possible.
From what I can tell he's able to ride in any transport provided through their formation. That's a ton of vehicles.
And that's just the issues from what we currently know - imagine how much disappointing it will be when we know more.
Yes, the sky might be falling - or not.
In particular What exactly is you reason for Inquisitors not to have invulnerable saves? I can't see how its especially powerful - especially compared to what power dexes get and its totally in tune with the lore.
Please point me to a single line where I said that Inquisitors shouldn't have invulnerable saves. I've never said that, so why exactly do you think I have to explain myself on that topic in any way? I have no clue why GW decided to not give Inquisitors a refractor field. I simply don't think it's as big a deal as you clearly do. *edit* While repeatedly claiming how it's not a big deal at all since it wouldn't make them powerful anyway (which I agree with as long as the points cost are appropiate).
Name those new things Sisters got? Rate them alongside other recent dexes? They got two detachments - one of which is obviously to assist non Sisters codexes and the other is so dire its untrue.
If its not a big deal why are you against it
not giving them fields was a conscious decision when they first assembled the codex, and it's one I generally agre
and i specifcially gave it as a single example of the dex could be improved - then you suddenly got excited and starting saying nonsense like
basically are mobile force field generators
Why are you so against the lore and fluff being reflected on the tabletop?
re transports - you do get that they have put in a Navy unit that only the navy officer can deploy in amngst other nonsese.
So what is good about this dex that you personally see as improvement. Currently I can only see that we finally have them in hard copy.
However his psychic powers were changed later on to sanctic: focus, banishment, sanctuary and hammerhand. As noted He is an inqusitor character so perils is an issue.
Thanks! However that says he's just Scoring, not ObSec.
Send FW an email. pretty much every unit that had that effect such as buzzgrob etc all contest and score aka obj secured.
I love his model and his set psychic powers are great since he can increase his unit invul, hurt demons invul, and add 2str to unit, and obj secured. A priest, 2 crusaders, 2-4 DCA and maybe an enginseer if canticles work on the unit, or maybe an astropath for telepathy powers (invisibility).
Back this unit up with a drago star grey knight formation and your set.
weirdingway wrote: For what it's worth, this is one of the first canonical descriptions of an Inquisitor and his standard equipment:
Spoiler:
He wears (skin-tight) power armor, a conversion field, a stasis field, and a refractor field! Inquisitors are supposed to have carte blanche when it comes to acquiring technology and requisitioning troops. Of course tech levels have been downgraded over time and almost every character in Rogue Trader was highly equipped with digital lasers and fields, but it's pretty crazy for a battlefield Inquisitor in a modern 40k setting not having access to things like artificer armor and energy fields, much less more esoteric equipment.
and you thought ( i dont mean you i just mean in general ) lizardmen names were bad... eesh!
I haven't seen anyone mention the Admech units yet. Are they basically just as seen in the Imperial Guard codex, but with Canticles added on? I'd love to be able to field 3 enginseers and 15 servitors in my Cult Mechanicus army as close combat speedbumps and meat shields.
From what we KNOW: Sisters also got access to Death Cult Assassins as a unit. probably Crusaders and flagellants, too. Do we always need huge amounts of new rules in EVERY release?
In particular What exactly is you reason for Inquisitors not to have invulnerable saves? I can't see how its especially powerful - especially compared to what power dexes get and its totally in tune with the lore.
Please point me to a single line where I said that Inquisitors shouldn't have invulnerable saves. I've never said that, so why exactly do you think I have to explain myself on that topic in any way? I have no clue why GW decided to not give Inquisitors a refractor field. I simply don't think it's as big a deal as you clearly do. *edit* While repeatedly claiming how it's not a big deal at all since it wouldn't make them powerful anyway (which I agree with as long as the points cost are appropiate).
If its not a big deal why are you against it
not giving them fields was a conscious decision when they first assembled the codex, and it's one I generally agre
and i specifcially gave it as a single example of the dex could be improved - then you suddenly got excited and starting saying nonsense like
basically are mobile force field generators
Why are you so against the lore and fluff being reflected on the tabletop?
Read what you quoted. Just do it. And now reflect on what you just wrote. Do you notice a certain ... mismatch between what you claim my position is and what I've actually written?
re transports - you do get that they have put in a Navy unit that only the navy officer can deploy in amngst other nonsese.
You've got no clue what transport options are available to Acolytes. None at all. Nor have you seen all the Navy pages, have you? Maybe they've put in a "you may embark Battle Brothers on this transport". Who knows? I don't, and I don't think there's been a leak of those pages, or am I mistaken?
So what is good about this dex that you personally see as improvement. Currently I can only see that we finally have them in hard copy.
It being a hard copy is #1, it being proper 7th edition rules another. I also really like the Chamber Militant rules. Having a single book for multiple "Imperial Friends" detachments / addons is also a huge plus to me, as I'm a purely imperial player and I really like mixing my armies.
throwing a ton of new rules at every codex release / faction update is exactly how we ended up with an incredibly imbalanced game. I'm not a fan of the whole powercreep going on, so - in terms of game balance - I'm just waiting for 8th edition to hopefully fix that problem. A single Codex just can't do that, sadly - so I'm not really expecting it from any such release.
nekooni wrote: From what we KNOW: Sisters also got access to Death Cult Assassins as a unit. probably Crusaders and flagellants, too. Do we always need huge amounts of new rules in EVERY release?
nekooni wrote: From what we KNOW: Sisters also got access to Death Cult Assassins as a unit. probably Crusaders and flagellants, too. Do we always need huge amounts of new rules in EVERY release?
In particular What exactly is you reason for Inquisitors not to have invulnerable saves? I can't see how its especially powerful - especially compared to what power dexes get and its totally in tune with the lore.
Please point me to a single line where I said that Inquisitors shouldn't have invulnerable saves. I've never said that, so why exactly do you think I have to explain myself on that topic in any way? I have no clue why GW decided to not give Inquisitors a refractor field. I simply don't think it's as big a deal as you clearly do. *edit* While repeatedly claiming how it's not a big deal at all since it wouldn't make them powerful anyway (which I agree with as long as the points cost are appropiate).
If its not a big deal why are you against it
not giving them fields was a conscious decision when they first assembled the codex, and it's one I generally agre
and i specifcially gave it as a single example of the dex could be improved - then you suddenly got excited and starting saying nonsense like
basically are mobile force field generators
Why are you so against the lore and fluff being reflected on the tabletop?
Read what you quoted. Just do it. And now reflect on what you just wrote. Do you notice a certain ... mismatch between what you claim my position is and what I've actually written?
re transports - you do get that they have put in a Navy unit that only the navy officer can deploy in amngst other nonsese.
You've got no clue what transport options are available to Acolytes. None at all. Nor have you seen all the Navy pages, have you? Maybe they've put in a "you may embark Battle Brothers on this transport". Who knows? I don't, and I don't think there's been a leak of those pages, or am I mistaken?
So what is good about this dex that you personally see as improvement. Currently I can only see that we finally have them in hard copy.
It being a hard copy is #1, it being proper 7th edition rules another. I also really like the Chamber Militant rules. Having a single book for multiple "Imperial Friends" detachments / addons is also a huge plus to me, as I'm a purely imperial player and I really like mixing my armies.
throwing a ton of new rules at every codex release / faction update is exactly how we ended up with an incredibly imbalanced game. I'm not a fan of the whole powercreep going on, so - in terms of game balance - I'm just waiting for 8th edition to hopefully fix that problem. A single Codex just can't do that, sadly - so I'm not really expecting it from any such release.
Okay fine that is cool, they need a cheap mob unit like they had originally. Redemptionists would be really cool here. A mid range autogun / shotgun unit, that can soak fire, provide some anti Armour ( evisorator, meltagun) or anti infantry ( flamer, extaingunators? - 1 shot flamers, pos heavy stubber, grenade launcher) maybe zelot or frenzy
I think it would fix a lot of problems, throw in a cheap buggy like the Pulptek, you get a sisters army and a Redemptionist force in the same book`
nekooni wrote: From what we KNOW: Sisters also got access to Death Cult Assassins as a unit. probably Crusaders and flagellants, too. Do we always need huge amounts of new rules in EVERY release?
Sisters already had access to that unit.
To be fair they had access to the Battle Conclave through a Priest, whose modifications allowed you to field any combination. Crusaders, DCA, and Acro-Flagellants are now separate units. So yeah Nekooni is technically right, even if the change isn't really something all that compelling.
weirdingway wrote: For what it's worth, this is one of the first canonical descriptions of an Inquisitor and his standard equipment:
Spoiler:
He wears (skin-tight) power armor, a conversion field, a stasis field, and a refractor field! Inquisitors are supposed to have carte blanche when it comes to acquiring technology and requisitioning troops. Of course tech levels have been downgraded over time and almost every character in Rogue Trader was highly equipped with digital lasers and fields, but it's pretty crazy for a battlefield Inquisitor in a modern 40k setting not having access to things like artificer armor and energy fields, much less more esoteric equipment.
That's the past. Now the modern-day Inquisitor doesn't have three Jokaero digital weapons - he has three Jokaeros. Likewise he doesn't have three energy fields - he has a Crusader, an Enginseer and an Akolyte with shield - all of them can be used at once of course. Henchmen are just equipment for a true Inquisitor.
ERJAK wrote: Plastic Sisters aren't coming. January will be more chaos gak, then february switches to Sigmar then marines->chaos->xenos->back to sigmar. They haven't even started work on new models and aren't going to.
If this is true, then why tease us with the Magnus video? I cannot believe with all of the progress they have made this past 15 months that they would be that stupid. While I expect you are correct, they aren't coming in January I have a hard time believing they aren't coming at all. My original prediction of them coming via the release of 8th edition is still the best shot I believe.
ShaneMarsh wrote: To be fair they had access to the Battle Conclave through a Priest, whose modifications allowed you to field any combination. Crusaders, DCA, and Acro-Flagellants are now separate units. So yeah Nekooni is technically right, even if the change isn't really something all that compelling.
So you mean that Nekooni is technically right because his supposed improvement is actually a downgrade? Interesting.
BloodGrin wrote: I think people really need to have a sense of humor and some thicker skin.
Either they will come, or they will not but there is nothing wrong with GW taking a piss with the whole thing.
I think you should immolate yourself in fire as a tribute to alliterations. Don't worry it's just a joke !
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also Inquisitors should have access to 4/5 weird defense wargear like teleportation fields (as in Cain's book), refractor fields have been mentioned (was it the -1 strength field?), rosarius, maybe stuff that make them immune to specific types of attack (think like the Avatar being immune to melta/flame), or some field that gives Shrouded…
weirdingway wrote: For what it's worth, this is one of the first canonical descriptions of an Inquisitor and his standard equipment:
Spoiler:
He wears (skin-tight) power armor, a conversion field, a stasis field, and a refractor field! Inquisitors are supposed to have carte blanche when it comes to acquiring technology and requisitioning troops. Of course tech levels have been downgraded over time and almost every character in Rogue Trader was highly equipped with digital lasers and fields, but it's pretty crazy for a battlefield Inquisitor in a modern 40k setting not having access to things like artificer armor and energy fields, much less more esoteric equipment.
That's the past. Now the modern-day Inquisitor doesn't have three Jokaero digital weapons - he has three Jokaeros. Likewise he doesn't have three energy fields - he has a Crusader, an Enginseer and an Akolyte with shield - all of them can be used at once of course. Henchmen are just equipment for a true Inquisitor.
Here's another buff.
Enginseer and servitors with canticles equal cheap 4x plasma cannon spam with canticles that allow for reroll of gets hot.
Add in a Xenos inqusitor with psyccolum for bs10 action vs psykers or units that contain psykers.
Then if that unit gets into combat beat the other unit down with your 5x servo arms for str6 ap1 action and add your strength canticles for 1-3 strength with that priest for reroll to hit in combat!
gungo wrote: Here's another buff.
Enginseer and servitors with canticles equal cheap 4x plasma cannon spam with canticles that allow for reroll of gets hot.
Add in a Xenos inqusitor with psyccolum for bs10 action vs psykers or units that contain psykers.
Then if that unit gets into combat beat the other unit down with your 5x servo arms for str6 ap1 action and add your strength canticles for 1-3 strength with that priest for reroll to hit in combat!
Aren't servitors exchange their servo-arms for the heavy weapon option?
This doesn't replace the main codex's right? Definitely doesn't replace Deathwatch and Grey Knights. If I'm right then that means we can continue to use the only Inquisition and Sisters of Battle codex's.
Kavish wrote: This doesn't replace the main codex's right? Definitely doesn't replace Deathwatch and Grey Knights. If I'm right then that means we can continue to use the only Inquisition and Sisters of Battle codex's.
According the Warhammer's FB, it does replace Inq and SoB.
Kavish wrote: This doesn't replace the main codex's right? Definitely doesn't replace Deathwatch and Grey Knights. If I'm right then that means we can continue to use the only Inquisition and Sisters of Battle codex's.
It's the update for Inq and SOB according to their ecodex pages on the store. Or at least it calls them "revised and updated" rules.
NivlacSupreme wrote: Veterannoob: You don't know anything about the Canoness's rules do you?
She has the usual rules but can give her/her unit hatred in combat. A generic HQ, using art of old model. I'll get the new one.
Just going through these now. New canoness, which has pic of old model (that Sister with 2 options of body and backpack/flame) has her gearm special rules, THe Passion (Hatred) rule, can be kitted up with a little variety and can take the relics. Decide how valuable you think that is
Does the limited ed actually have different rules? Unsure about that, but maybe someone here knows. We're recording the podcast review for this book now and considering a lot of discussion these past few days and some...discussion...I think we're a little half & half with many parts of the book.
hrowing a ton of new rules at every codex release / faction update is exactly how we ended up with an incredibly imbalanced game. I'm not a fan of the whole powercreep going on, so - in terms of game balance - I'm just waiting for 8th edition to hopefully fix that problem. A single Codex just can't do that, sadly - so I'm not really expecting it from any such release
Which Imperial Codexes do you play then. Is it only your codexes that are allowed to have good stuff?
Still wating for you to explain what the bonus to the Sisters of Battle was? St Celestine is gone, this is the new codex, in exchange two truely dire detachments - one of which is there to help - oh yeah Marines - what a shock.
You've got no clue what transport options are available to Acolytes. None at all. Nor have you seen all the Navy pages, have you? Maybe they've put in a "you may embark Battle Brothers on this transport". Who knows? I don't, and I don't think there's been a leak of those pages, or am I mistaken?
We will soon see who is right - all the signs point to none of these - its not mentioned in the overiding Inqusitional Formaiton which has been shown. The reviewers have confirmed that all units retain their Factions so no deploying in transports like the Valykries.
Read what you quoted. Just do it. And now reflect on what you just wrote. Do you notice a certain ... mismatch between what you claim my position is and what I've actually written?
Nope, several of us suggested that Inquistors should really have a Invul save to be in line with the fluff - and suddenly "they are walking force shield generators" - so which is it - they should or should not have them? Again why are you anti- lore/fluff
VeteranNoob wrote: Does the limited ed actually have different rules? Unsure about that, but maybe someone here knows. We're recording the podcast review for this book now and considering a lot of discussion these past few days and some...discussion...I think we're a little half & half with many parts of the book.
When will your podcast be out? I think a lot of people are on the edge of their seat hoping there will be something to eleviate the transport issues. That goes without saying that there are many odd things that hopefully will be fixed when 8th comes.
VeteranNoob wrote: Does the limited ed actually have different rules? Unsure about that, but maybe someone here knows. We're recording the podcast review for this book now and considering a lot of discussion these past few days and some...discussion...I think we're a little half & half with many parts of the book.
Do you have the current AS codex - if not I can PM the actual current Canoness rules to compare.
It would be nice if there was something extra with her - but it seems doubtful considering how much of a kick in the teeth this already is to Sisters players.
Just going through these now. New canoness, which has pic of old model (that Sister with 2 options of body and backpack/flame) has her gearm special rules, THe Passion (Hatred) rule, can be kitted up with a little variety and can take the relics. Decide how valuable you think that is
The Passion is the normal rule, she could always take a single relic although since you can only have one (except of course some Tau players argue differently) its usually the Eternal Warrior one not the sword.
If you are able to clear up some fo the points on contention - is there any special rule (we don't need details) that allows delpoyment in the various trasnport - especially things like the Navy Valykrie's.
VeteranNoob wrote: Does the limited ed actually have different rules? Unsure about that, but maybe someone here knows. We're recording the podcast review for this book now and considering a lot of discussion these past few days and some...discussion...I think we're a little half & half with many parts of the book.
When will your podcast be out? I think a lot of people are on the edge of their seat hoping there will be something to eleviate the transport issues. That goes without saying that there are many odd things that hopefully will be fixed when 8th comes.
Not to jump on VeteranNoobs toes or anything, but I'll be picking up the codex and new Cannoness model after I knock off work (in about 3-4hours from this post), so I'll be able to give some insight. I regularly play with the current Adepta Sororitas and Inquisition e-dexs too so I should be able to pick the differences.
Mr Morden wrote: [ Is it only your codexes that are allowed to have good stuff?
Still wating for you to explain what the bonus to the Sisters of Battle was? St Celestine is gone, this is the new codex, in exchange two truely dire detachments - one of which is there to help - oh yeah Marines - what a shock.
fluff
St. Celestine is gone, but we do have another Special Character Cannoness. Yeah, this is still a downgrade and she is less helpful than Celestine, but not totally bad.
We did get two formations. Lackluster though they are, they are still better than nothing.
A couple of the Acts of Faith that used to only last the faze now last the turn. This is a big one, and possibly the best buff.
Units of Death Cult assassins that can take an Immolator in the Elites slots is also kind-of nice.
Not to jump on VeteranNoobs toes or anything, but I'll be picking up the codex and new Cannoness model after I knock off work (in about 3-4hours from this post), so I'll be able to give some insight. I regularly play with the current Adepta Sororitas and Inquisition e-dexs too so I should be able to pick the differences.
To you, good sir, or VeteranNoob: any word about the acolytes would be greatly appreciated. They've been glossed over in all the previews so far and it's driving me a little nuts.
gungo wrote: Here's another buff.
Enginseer and servitors with canticles equal cheap 4x plasma cannon spam with canticles that allow for reroll of gets hot.
Add in a Xenos inqusitor with psyccolum for bs10 action vs psykers or units that contain psykers.
Then if that unit gets into combat beat the other unit down with your 5x servo arms for str6 ap1 action and add your strength canticles for 1-3 strength with that priest for reroll to hit in combat!
Aren't servitors exchange their servo-arms for the heavy weapon option?
Ya sorry the servitors lose thier servo Arm for a heavy weapon but hey they are only 10pt models.
My plan for the Engineseer and servitors is to make them both bullet catchers for the rest of Cult Mech, and a cheap way to get more units for Canticles of the Omnisiah. If their rules are anything similar to their Admech rules than for 270 points I have 6 units with Canticles. Makes it pretty easy to get max benefits.
VeteranNoob wrote: Does the limited ed actually have different rules? Unsure about that, but maybe someone here knows. We're recording the podcast review for this book now and considering a lot of discussion these past few days and some...discussion...I think we're a little half & half with many parts of the book.
When will your podcast be out? I think a lot of people are on the edge of their seat hoping there will be something to eleviate the transport issues. That goes without saying that there are many odd things that hopefully will be fixed when 8th comes.
Not to jump on VeteranNoobs toes or anything, but I'll be picking up the codex and new Cannoness model after I knock off work (in about 3-4hours from this post), so I'll be able to give some insight. I regularly play with the current Adepta Sororitas and Inquisition e-dexs too so I should be able to pick the differences.
If you have a chance, a quick rundown of the Acolyte dataslate (and what transports they have) would be very much appreciated. I wonder if they have upgrade options outside of the wargear now that they have their own data slate (like Veteran Acolyte with +1 BS or +1A or something for X points), or if they just filled up a whole data slate with very little info.
Any info on the new Inq stuff would be very much appreciated though Goon! Thanks in advance!
Codex in hand, ask away. Things I can quickly confirm:
Canonness Veridyan has a dataslate with rules. She gives out a Precision Shot/Precision Strike bubble to Adepta Sororitas units within 12". Otherwise same as a regular Canoness, but comes with a Power Sword, and she costs 85pts. My first thought - sit her near a unit of Retributors for pseudo-Snipers (ie Rending Heavy Bolters with Precision Shots). Incidentally, the cast on my model looks good - only a very minor bubble on the back of the cloak where you'll never see it. It's also got a 2016 copyright for those interested.
All the armies in the book are their own Factions, with all the implications that carries. The Valkyrie in particular is listed as-is from the Astra Militarum codex (with Faction: Aeronautica Imperialis instead). BUT, Acolytes *can* take a Valkyrie as a Dedicated Transport (as well as Battle Sister Rhinos and Grey Knight Land Raiders). Games Workshop just borked their own FAQ as far as I can tell :s
The Canoness still has the Eviscerator and Inferno Pistols as a wargear option on her dataslate for those who were worried.
The Exorcist Missile Launcher is specifically ruled as a Turret Mounted weapon with 360-degree arc of sight.
Condemnor Boltguns and Immolators have the modified FAQ rulings (ie Condemnor Boltguns only need to hit a unit with a Psyker in it to cause Perils, and Immolators have a Fire Point).
Warlord Traits/Relics are unchanged for both Sororitas and Inquisition
Grey Knights Formation (Demonhunter Strike Force) is 1 Troop, 1 Fast Attack, 1 optional Heavy Support and all units can start making Deep Strike reserve rolls from turn 1 as well as Running and Shooting the turn they Deep Strike. Basically its a slightly different Nemesis Strike Force
Acolytes are 3-9 Acolytes with same statline and upgrade options as before (though Carapace and Power Armour got cut in cost by half). Additionally, any Acolyte can be upgraded to a Mystic with the same No Deep Strike Scatter rule as before. The unit can take Chimeras, Soroitas Rhinos, Land Raiders of all 3 types and Valkyries as Dedicated Transports.
Demonhosts are a unit of 1 - and now have the actual Demon rule too! - but are otherwise unchanged.
Edit2: So after looking through the Adepta Sororitas and Inquisition lists, here are the changes I can see from the e-dexs. If I didn't mention it, it didn't change as far as I can see.
Sororitas Command Squad moved to the Elites section
New unit: Arco-flagellants (Elite). 3 Arco-Flagellants for 30pts, can buy up to 7 more. Rhino or Immolator as DT.
New unit: Crusaders (Elite). 2 Crusaders for 30pts, can buy up to 8 more. Rhino or Immolator as DT
New unit: Death Cult Assassins (Elite). 2 DCA's for 30pts, can buy up to 8 more. Rhino or immolator.
New detachment: Ministorum Delegation. 1 HQ (must be a Ministorum Priest) and 1 optional Elite, all units in the detachment gain Shield of Faith.
New detachment: Vestal Task Force. 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elite, optional 1 HQ, 4 Troops, 2 Elites, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Heavy Support. Once per game all units can re-roll saving throws of 1 until the end of the turn. Warlord can re-roll Walord Trait if Primary Detachment.
New formation: Ecclisarchy Battle Conclave. 1 Ministorum Priest or Uriah Jacobus. 3-10 units in any combination of Arco-flagellants, Crusaders or Death Cult Assassins. All models in the Formation form a single unit, and all models get the Shield of Faith rule.
Immolator: Gained a Fire Point on the top hatch (as per the draft FAQ).
Condemnor Boltgun: Only requires you to hit an enemy unit with a Psyker to cause Perils, rather than having to cause an Unsaved Wound (as per the draft FAQ)
Acts of Faith: They all now last until the End of the Turn, rather than the End of the Phase. This means some slight buffs, eg Battle Sister Squads can now carry their Preferred Enemy Act of Faith from the Shooting Phase into the Assault Phase of the same turn.
Exorcist: Exorcist Missile Launcher clarified to be a turret mounted weapon with a 360-degree arc of sight.
New Tactical Objectives:
* Slay the Heretic: Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if you killed any enemy characters during the turn
* Armour of Contempt: The next time one of your Adepta Sororitas makes a successful Shield of Faith save or Deny the Witch roll, immediately score 1 VP.
* Reclaim Lost Relic: Roll a D6 - Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if you control the objective that corresponds to the D6 result.
* Trust in the Emperor: Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if a unit with the Act of Faith rule destroys an enemy unit. If the unit was under the effects of an Act of Faith, score D3 VPs instead.
* The Blood of Martyrs: Next time one of your Adepta Sororitas characters is slain, score 1 VP. If the model as the Martyrdom rule, score D3 VPs instead.
* A Leap of Faith: Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if you pass at least 1 Act of Faith test during the turn. If you pass 3, score D3 VPs instead. If you pass 6 or more, score D3+3 VPs instead.
Inquisition:
Inquisitors - lost the cheaper power weapon, power fist and plasma pistol options which are now standard price (with the exception of the Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, who can still take 10pt Power Swords but still can't take Power Fists or other Power Weapons).
Inquisitors - Power Armour upgrade reduced to 3pts from 8pts
Inquisitors - lost Servo Skulls
Inquisitors - can now only take the Inquisitorial Relic associated with their Ordos.
Inquisitors - Psyk-Out grenade rules changed to match the updated Grey Knight rules
Ordo Malleus Inquisitors - Can generate from Demonology (Malefic). Does not extend to Coteaz.... (heresy).
Inquisitor Coteaz - Gained the Lord of Formosa special rule. All units in the same detachment as Coteaz are Objective Secured.
Dedicated Transports - Lost Razorbacks and Rhinos, but gained Sororitas Rhinos. Chimeras are still only 55pts, but lost the 5 Fire Points (now work the same as Codex: Astra Militarum ie 2 Fire Points and the Lasgun Arrays rule). Lost the ability to give Inquisitorial Vehicle Upgrades to anything but the Chimera - this means no more Psybolt Land Raider Crusaders. This is because Land Raiders, Sororitas Rhinos and Valkyries come from the Grey Knight, Adepta Sororitas and Aeronautica Imperalis lists respectively, and can only take the Vehicle Upgrades listed in those sections.
Inquisitorial Henchman Warband unit removed.
Psykers Removed (ie no longer an option as a Henchman. Effectively moved to the Adepta Astra Telepathica section, where you can grab Primaris Psykers, Astropaths and Wyrdvane Psykers). Astropaths btw are 25pts for ML1 (Divination and Telepathy), same statline as the Astra Militarum Regimental Advisor. However you can upgrade this one to ML2 for 25pts, give him a Refractor Field for 10pts and also gets a rule where if he manifests a Psychic Power you can re-roll Reserve Rolls in your next turn. Basically a mini Primaris Psyker
Servitors Removed (moved to the Cult Mechanicus section of the book. Plasma Cannon option increased to 15pts from 10pts)
New Unit: Acolytes (Elite). 3 Acolytes for 12pts and can buy up to 9 more for 4pts/model. Same statline and wargear options as previous codex, however the cost of Carapace/Power armour upgrades are cut in half (2 and 5pts respectively). Any Acolyte can be upgraded to a Mystic for 6pts, and gain the same Psychic Beacon rule. Can take Chimeras, Sororitas Rhinos, all 3 Land Raider types or Valkyries as transports.
New Unit: Demonhost (Elite). 1 Demonhost for 10pts. Gains the Demon rule, otherwise identical to previous codex.
New Unit: Jokaero Weaponsmith (Elite). 1 Jokareo Weaponsmith for 35pts. Identical to previous codex.
New Unit: Chimera (Heavy Support). Also lost the 5 fire points, and now works the same as the Astra Militarum one.
New Detachment: Inquisitorial Representative. 1 HQ, optional 3 Elites. One Inquisitor from the formation (including Unique models) can generate a Warlord Trait even if they are not the Warlord.
New Formation: Inquisitorial Henchman Warband. 1 Inquisitor (including Unique models), 1 Unit of Acolytes, 0-1 Ministorum Priests, 0-1 Crusaders, 0-6 Demonhosts, 0-1 Arco-flagellents, 0-1 Death Cult Assassins, 0-1 Tech-Priest Enginseer, 0-6 Jokearo Weaponsmiths, 0-1 Astropaths. All units except the Inquisitor must form a single Unit. Inquisitor can generate a Warlord Trait even if they are not the Warlord. Can include either a Battle Sister Squad, Grey Knight Terminator Squad or Deathwatch Veteran squad in the formation as per your Inquisitors Ordo.
casvalremdeikun wrote:Is the only thing in there for the Deathwatch just the Veteran Squad? No formation or anything?
Deathwatch get a Kill Team, which is a unit of Veterans who get the Aquila Doctrine (re-roll To Wounds/Armour Pen of 1), but can only take the Corvus Blackstar as a Dedicated Transport
ShaneMarsh wrote:Can you confirm that Command Squads for the Sisters are an Elite choice? What is the AI formation? The DW?
Veridyan sounds cool.
Command Squads are Elite Choices. Aeronautica Imperialis formation is 1 Fast Attack (ie a Valkyrie), 1 optional HQ (ie an Officer of the Fleet) and can re-roll failed Reserve Rolls...
Mike Leon wrote:Are assassins just a copy/paste or anything new?
Assassins are unchanged from their current incarnation.
casvalremdeikun wrote:Is the only thing in there for the Deathwatch just the Veteran Squad? No formation or anything?
Deathwatch get a Kill Team, which is a unit of Veterans who get the Aquila Doctrine (re-roll To Wounds/Armour Pen of 1), but can only take the Corvus Blackstar as a Dedicated Transport.[/url]
That is actually pretty cool. It is also cheaper than an actual Aquila Kill Team, since you don't need a Terminator, Librarian, Biker, or Vanguard Veteran.
It is weird that they would change the datasheets between the different codexes though.
So an Inquisition faction Acolyte squad can take an Adepta Sororitas faction Rhino or Aeronautica faction Valkyrie but can't start the game in them according to the FAQ.
Chris521 wrote: I wonder if this means no more bolter/shotgun for the Deathwatch vets since they removed the boltgun from the Ranged Weapons entry.
Yeah looks like. Good catch, I didn't notice that at first. The Veteran's dataslate in C:IA is the same as the Codex: DeathWatch one too (minus Drop Pod, Rhino and Razorback DT options), so nothing changed there to allow it. I suspect the Free Boltgun swap was only in the Codex: Deathwatch Ranged Weapons list to allow Captains/Chaplains/Librarians to be kitted with a Boltgun.
Loopstah wrote: So an Inquisition faction Acolyte squad can take an Adepta Sororitas faction Rhino or Aeronautica faction Valkyrie but can't start the game in them according to the FAQ.
Well played GW, well played.
Actually, I think we may be OK on that front:
"Sometimes a unit entry will include a transport option...
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport capacity and other specific exclusions, as explained in the vehicle's entry."
So no Drop Pod taxis still, but as long it was bought for a unit, the unit can start in it, plus any (Allied) ICs attached to that unit. The specific "the only limitation" would seem to override the general "units cannot ride in allied transports"
The scary thing here is that, according to the FAQ, the most recent datasheet trumps all others. What that translates to is that Deathwatch Veterans squads just lost the ability to take Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods as Dedicated Transports as this new datasheet is the most recent version of their datasheet.
This guy has to be lying/trolling. His pictures aren't blurry enough.
GoonBandito, if you want us to believe you you need to take the pictures from the bed of a moving pickup truck, driving by the codex doing 50 or so, with the flash and nightvision modes on in broad daylight, and possibly after someone has sprayed the pages with glosscoat.
Chris521 wrote: I wonder if this means no more bolter/shotgun for the Deathwatch vets since they removed the boltgun from the Ranged Weapons entry.
Yeah looks like. Good catch, I didn't notice that at first. The Veteran's dataslate in C:IA is the same as the Codex: DeathWatch one too (minus Drop Pod, Rhino and Razorback DT options), so nothing changed there to allow it. I suspect the Free Boltgun swap was only in the Codex: Deathwatch Ranged Weapons list to allow Captains/Chaplains/Librarians to be kitted with a Boltgun.
Do you see any difference in the wording for blackshields and heavy thunder hammers? I know that the Deathwatch codex only says "any Veteran" and not any model. Assuming of coarse, Blackshields are in this dataslate.
Mike Leon wrote: This guy has to be lying/trolling. His pictures aren't blurry enough.
GoonBandito, if you want us to believe you you need to take the pictures from the bed of a moving pickup truck, driving by the codex doing 50 or so, with the flash and nightvision modes on in broad daylight, and possibly after someone has sprayed the pages with glosscoat.
The hardest part is trying to balance the book open while holding a beer in one hand and the phone in the other
Chris521 wrote: I wonder if this means no more bolter/shotgun for the Deathwatch vets since they removed the boltgun from the Ranged Weapons entry.
Yeah looks like. Good catch, I didn't notice that at first. The Veteran's dataslate in C:IA is the same as the Codex: DeathWatch one too (minus Drop Pod, Rhino and Razorback DT options), so nothing changed there to allow it. I suspect the Free Boltgun swap was only in the Codex: Deathwatch Ranged Weapons list to allow Captains/Chaplains/Librarians to be kitted with a Boltgun.
Do you see any difference in the wording for blackshields and heavy thunder hammers? I know that the Deathwatch codex only says "any Veteran" and not any model. Assuming of coarse, Blackshields are in this dataslate.
Worded exactly the same as Codex: Deathwatch. The only difference in the Veterans dataslate itself is that they don't have Rhino, Razorback or Drop Pod options in Codex: Imperial Agents.
casvalremdeikun wrote: The scary thing here is that, according to the FAQ, the most recent datasheet trumps all others. What that translates to is that Deathwatch Veterans squads just lost the ability to take Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods as Dedicated Transports as this new datasheet is the most recent version of their datasheet.
No way they intended that just as I'm certain the Bolter/Shotgun combo was something they never intended either.
casvalremdeikun wrote: The scary thing here is that, according to the FAQ, the most recent datasheet trumps all others. What that translates to is that Deathwatch Veterans squads just lost the ability to take Rhinos, Razorbacks, and Drop Pods as Dedicated Transports as this new datasheet is the most recent version of their datasheet.
No way they intended that just as I'm certain the Bolter/Shotgun combo was something they never intended either.
Probably not as intended, but it is what the effect is. The newer datasheet replaces the old one. Which means no more Rhinos, Razorbacks, or Drop Pods in Deathwatch unless you spend a FA slot for them.
Regarding the big formation of =I= is there a limit of how many models form the unit?
the one with
1 inquisitor, 1 unit of acolytes, 0-1 priests 0-1 crusaders etc that form a single unit. does the 0-1 for Death cult assassins for example count as the unit of deathcult assassins or is it a single one (and with that, no more in the unt)?
Loopstah wrote: So an Inquisition faction Acolyte squad can take an Adepta Sororitas faction Rhino or Aeronautica faction Valkyrie but can't start the game in them according to the FAQ.
Well played GW, well played.
Actually, I think we may be OK on that front:
"Sometimes a unit entry will include a transport option...
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport capacity and other specific exclusions, as explained in the vehicle's entry."
So no Drop Pod taxis still, but as long it was bought for a unit, the unit can start in it, plus any (Allied) ICs attached to that unit. The specific "the only limitation" would seem to override the general "units cannot ride in allied transports"
That still doesn't allow the unit to start in the transport, because the faq states:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s
Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
And seeing how the transport doesn't change faction when taken as ds, means no one could start in the transport. But that is strictly speaky RAW.
So after looking through the Adepta Sororitas and Inquisition lists, here are the changes I can see from the e-dexs. If I didn't mention it, it didn't change as far as I can see.
Sororitas Command Squad moved to the Elites section
Ministorum Priests now a proper HQ choice (was previously a slotless 1-5 non-compulsory HQ)
New unit: Arco-flagellants (Elite). 3 Arco-Flagellants for 30pts, can buy up to 7 more. Rhino or Immolator as DT.
New unit: Crusaders (Elite). 2 Crusaders for 30pts, can buy up to 8 more. Rhino or Immolator as DT
New unit: Death Cult Assassins (Elite). 2 DCA's for 30pts, can buy up to 8 more. Rhino or immolator.
New detachment: Ministorum Delegation. 1 HQ (must be a Ministorum Priest) and 1 optional Elite, all units in the detachment gain Shield of Faith.
New detachment: Vestal Task Force. 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Elite, optional 1 HQ, 4 Troops, 2 Elites, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Heavy Support. Once per game all units can re-roll saving throws of 1 until the end of the turn. Warlord can re-roll Walord Trait if Primary Detachment.
New formation: Ecclisarchy Battle Conclave. 1 Ministorum Priest or Uriah Jacobus. 3-10 units in any combination of Arco-flagellants, Crusaders or Death Cult Assassins. All models in the Formation form a single unit, and all models get the Shield of Faith rule.
Immolator: Gained a Fire Point on the top hatch (as per the draft FAQ).
Condemnor Boltgun: Only requires you to hit an enemy unit with a Psyker to cause Perils, rather than having to cause an Unsaved Wound (as per the draft FAQ)
Acts of Faith: They all now last until the End of the Turn, rather than the End of the Phase. This means some slight buffs, eg Battle Sister Squads can now carry their Preferred Enemy Act of Faith from the Shooting Phase into the Assault Phase of the same turn.
Exorcist: Exorcist Missile Launcher clarified to be a turret mounted weapon with a 360-degree arc of sight.
New Tactical Objectives:
* Slay the Heretic: Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if you killed any enemy characters during the turn
* Armour of Contempt: The next time one of your Adepta Sororitas makes a successful Shield of Faith save or Deny the Witch roll, immediately score 1 VP.
* Reclaim Lost Relic: Roll a D6 - Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if you control the objective that corresponds to the D6 result.
* Trust in the Emperor: Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if a unit with the Act of Faith rule destroys an enemy unit. If the unit was under the effects of an Act of Faith, score D3 VPs instead.
* The Blood of Martyrs: Next time one of your Adepta Sororitas characters is slain, score 1 VP. If the model as the Martyrdom rule, score D3 VPs instead.
* A Leap of Faith: Score 1 VP at the end of your turn if you pass at least 1 Act of Faith test during the turn. If you pass 3, score D3 VPs instead. If you pass 6 or more, score D3+3 VPs instead.
Inquisition:
Inquisitors - lost the cheaper power weapon, power fist and plasma pistol options which are now standard price (with the exception of the Ordo Xenos Inquisitor, who can still take 10pt Power Swords but still can't take Power Fists or other Power Weapons).
Inquisitors - Power Armour upgrade reduced to 3pts from 8pts
Inquisitors - lost Servo Skulls
Inquisitors - Psyk-Out grenade rules changed to match the updated Grey Knight rules
Inquisitors - can now only take the Inquisitorial Relic associated with their Ordos.
Inquisitor Coteaz - Gained the Lord of Formosa special rule. All units in the same detachment as Coteaz are Objective Secured.
Dedicated Transports - Lost Razorbacks and Rhinos, but gained Sororitas Rhinos. Chimeras are still only 55pts, but lost the 5 Fire Points (now work the same as Codex: Astra Militarum ie 2 Fire Points and the Lasgun Arrays rule). Lost the ability to give Inquisitorial Vehicle Upgrades to anything but the Chimera - this means no more Psybolt Land Raider Crusaders. This is because Land Raiders, Sororitas Rhinos and Valkyries come from the Grey Knight, Adepta Sororitas and Aeronautica Imperalis lists respectively, and can only take the Vehicle Upgrades listed in those sections.
Inquisitorial Henchman Warband unit removed.
Psykers Removed (ie no longer an option as a Henchman. Effectively moved to the Adepta Astra Telepathica section, where you can grab Primaris Psykers, Astropaths and Wyrdvane Psykers).
Servitors Removed (moved to the Cult Mechanicus section of the book. Plasma Cannon option increased to 15pts from 10pts)
New Unit: Acolytes (Elite). 3 Acolytes for 12pts and can buy up to 9 more for 4pts/model. Same statline and wargear options as previous codex, however the cost of Carapace/Power armour upgrades are cut in half (2 and 5pts respectively). Any Acolyte can be upgraded to a Mystic for 6pts, and gain the same Psychic Beacon rule. Can take Chimeras, Sororitas Rhinos, all 3 Land Raider types or Valkyries as transports.
New Unit: Demonhost (Elite). 1 Demonhost for 10pts. Gains the Demon rule, otherwise identical to previous codex.
New Unit: Jokaero Weaponsmith (Elite). 1 Jokareo Weaponsmith for 35pts. Identical to previous codex.
New Unit: Chimera (Heavy Support). Also lost the 5 fire points, and now works the same as the Astra Militarum one.
New Detachment: Inquisitorial Representative. 1 HQ, optional 3 Elites. One Inquisitor from the formation (including Unique models) can generate a Warlord Trait even if they are not the Warlord.
New Formation: Inquisitorial Henchman Warband. 1 Inquisitor (including Unique models), 1 Unit of Acolytes, 0-1 Ministorum Priests, 0-1 Crusaders, 0-6 Demonhosts, 0-1 Arco-flagellents, 0-1 Death Cult Assassins, 0-1 Tech-Priest Enginseer, 0-6 Jokearo Weaponsmiths, 0-1 Astropaths. All units except the Inquisitor must form a single Unit. Inquisitor can generate a Warlord Trait even if they are not the Warlord. Can include either a Battle Sister Squad, Grey Knight Terminator Squad or Deathwatch Veteran squad in the formation as per your Inquisitors Ordo.
hrowing a ton of new rules at every codex release / faction update is exactly how we ended up with an incredibly imbalanced game. I'm not a fan of the whole powercreep going on, so - in terms of game balance - I'm just waiting for 8th edition to hopefully fix that problem. A single Codex just can't do that, sadly - so I'm not really expecting it from any such release
Which Imperial Codexes do you play then. Is it only your codexes that are allowed to have good stuff?
Sorted by points: Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Inquisition, Deathwatch and Grey Knights. A Sisters of Battle army is planned, waiting for delivery from RH. Technically I've also got Officio Assassinorum.
Still wating for you to explain what the bonus to the Sisters of Battle was? St Celestine is gone, this is the new codex, in exchange two truely dire detachments - one of which is there to help - oh yeah Marines - what a shock.
As I've already answered I was under the impression that DCAs as Squads are a new thing. See above - SoB aren't an army of mine yet, so I'm not THAT familiar with the rules. My mistake.
You've got no clue what transport options are available to Acolytes. None at all. Nor have you seen all the Navy pages, have you? Maybe they've put in a "you may embark Battle Brothers on this transport". Who knows? I don't, and I don't think there's been a leak of those pages, or am I mistaken?
We will soon see who is right - all the signs point to none of these - its not mentioned in the overiding Inqusitional Formaiton which has been shown. The reviewers have confirmed that all units retain their Factions so no deploying in transports like the Valykries.
The Navy stuff isn't ever part of the Inquisitorial Formation from what I can tell - and we haven't seen the Detachment that's attached to it, have we?
The other possible way to get a Valkyrie would be as a DT for e.g. the Acolytes, and that would be of the same faction as the Acolytes for sure.
*edit*
Well, now that we KNOW that Valks are a DT, we can rest this issue, can't we?
Read what you quoted. Just do it. And now reflect on what you just wrote. Do you notice a certain ... mismatch between what you claim my position is and what I've actually written?
Nope, several of us suggested that Inquistors should really have a Invul save to be in line with the fluff - and suddenly "they are walking force shield generators" - so which is it - they should or should not have them? Again why are you anti- lore/fluff
First of all: Yes, they should have access but I don't think it's very important nor makes or breaks Inquisition as a faction or the Codex: Imperial Agents as a book. Which I've already said.
I've never suggested that they are walking force shield generators or would become ones if granted an invuln save. I've said that, judging by how essential some people think an invuln save is to an Inquisitor that one could think they are walking force shield generators, and thus wouldn't work or be playable at all without it (as a shield g enerator without a shield is pointless). I think Inquisitors - and the Codex: Imperial Agents - do not loose their right to exist just because Inquisitors don't have access to an Invuln save.
Spoiler:
That being said I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop taking quotes entirely out of context (see "walking force shield generators") to construct your strawmen, same goes for simply not quoting me at all and simply claiming I'd have said something which I haven't (see: "Inquisitors shouldn't have invuln saves") for the same purpose. Just because I disagree with you on how important an Invuln save is doesn't mean that I hate Inquisitors, Fluff, Sisters of Battle or whatever it is you'll come up with next.
Loopstah wrote: So an Inquisition faction Acolyte squad can take an Adepta Sororitas faction Rhino or Aeronautica faction Valkyrie but can't start the game in them according to the FAQ.
Well played GW, well played.
Actually, I think we may be OK on that front:
"Sometimes a unit entry will include a transport option...
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport capacity and other specific exclusions, as explained in the vehicle's entry."
So no Drop Pod taxis still, but as long it was bought for a unit, the unit can start in it, plus any (Allied) ICs attached to that unit. The specific "the only limitation" would seem to override the general "units cannot ride in allied transports"
That still doesn't allow the unit to start in the transport, because the faq states:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s
Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
And seeing how the transport doesn't change faction when taken as ds, means no one could start in the transport. But that is strictly speaky RAW.
Presumably is a case of the general rule (BRB + faq preventing starting in battle brothers transports) being trumped by the codex specific rule of allowing them as a dedicated transport. Codex often over-rides BRB but it would be nicer if they specifically state it. Clunky but still RAW.
Loopstah wrote: So an Inquisition faction Acolyte squad can take an Adepta Sororitas faction Rhino or Aeronautica faction Valkyrie but can't start the game in them according to the FAQ.
Well played GW, well played.
Actually, I think we may be OK on that front:
"Sometimes a unit entry will include a transport option...
The only limitation of a Dedicated Transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any Independent Characters that have joined it)After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly Infantry unit, subject to Transport capacity and other specific exclusions, as explained in the vehicle's entry."
So no Drop Pod taxis still, but as long it was bought for a unit, the unit can start in it, plus any (Allied) ICs attached to that unit. The specific "the only limitation" would seem to override the general "units cannot ride in allied transports"
That still doesn't allow the unit to start in the transport, because the faq states:
Q: Can units that are Battle Brothers embark in each other’s
Transport vehicles during deployment?
A: No.
And seeing how the transport doesn't change faction when taken as ds, means no one could start in the transport. But that is strictly speaky RAW.
Presumably is a case of the general rule (BRB + faq preventing starting in battle brothers transports) being trumped by the codex specific rule of allowing them as a dedicated transport. Codex often over-rides BRB but it would be nicer if they specifically state it. Clunky but still RAW.
but it never overrides the restriction, it just adds another restriction to the transport. Now I think anybody who wants you to follow raw on this one, is going against the spirit of the game and is ignoring the clear RAI
What the actual feth? They literally removed EVERYTHING that made Inquisition good: servo skulls (how are we supposed to counter scouting scar cheese now?). cheap, yet powerful due to psybolt, razorbacks, cheap warp charges... While all they could've done was to move Henchmen into troops. With the cheaper upgrades, mentioned above. But nooo, let's add some useless formations..
I guess, now I can bin my Inquisition razorback, that cost like 60 quid to make and be extremely glad that I hesitated to buy more upgrades for more razorbacks. Thanks, GW.
Wait wait, I can now run a unit of 100 DCA/crusaders/flahellants?? What the what???
(I kinda want to run a unit of 100 crusaders now as the ultimate tarpit.)
Oh, also; do litanies of true faith still exist? Thanks!
nudibranch wrote: Wait wait, I can now run a unit of 100 DCA/crusaders/flahellants?? What the what???
(I kinda want to run a unit of 100 crusaders now as the ultimate tarpit.)
How, exactly? I mean, 10 each still totals at 30 plus 12 melee-equipped Acolytes, but 100?
On the transports: Doesn't the formation say that all models are Faction Inquisition or something along those lines? Shouldn't that clearly override the more general FAQ rule?
That being said the Navy formation is - thanks to the FAQ - awesomely stupid. A transport that's apparently only able to transport a single model into battle.
Yeah, 3 - 10 units does seem odd there. It seems to be to enforce a minimum size (i.e. 6 models) but I feel like there might have been a better way to do that. Annoyingly it makes my Battle Conclave (2 Crusaders and 3 Arco-flagellants) illegal, but I can use them separately until I kitbash more models I guess.
@nekooni: he's referring to the Battle Conclave, which allows 3 - 10 units, each of 10 models, which all form a single unit.
Thommy H wrote: Yeah, 3 - 10 units does seem odd there. It seems to be to enforce a minimum size (i.e. 6 models) but I feel like there might have been a better way to do that. Annoyingly it makes my Battle Conclave (2 Crusaders and 3 Arco-flagellants) illegal, but I can use them separately until I kitbash more models I guess.
@nekooni: he's referring to the Battle Conclave, which allows 3 - 10 units, each of 10 models, which all form a single unit.
Wow. I missed the "single unit" there, thanks!
That's ridiculously funny. 100 Crusaders with Stormshields - well, that's 1500 points plus the priest, but still - what?
nudibranch wrote: Wait wait, I can now run a unit of 100 DCA/crusaders/flahellants?? What the what???
(I kinda want to run a unit of 100 crusaders now as the ultimate tarpit.)
How, exactly? I mean, 10 each still totals at 30 plus 12 melee-equipped Acolytes, but 100?
On the transports: Doesn't the formation say that all models are Faction Inquisition or something along those lines? Shouldn't that clearly override the more general FAQ rule?
That being said the Navy formation is - thanks to the FAQ - awesomely stupid. A transport that's apparently only able to transport a single model into battle.
New formation: Ecclisarchy Battle Conclave. 1 Ministorum Priest or Uriah Jacobus. 3-10 units in any combination of Arco-flagellants, Crusaders or Death Cult Assassins. All models in the Formation form a single unit, and all models get the Shield of Faith rule.
DarkStarSabre wrote: Going by that, if you wanted to have a Land Raider that had both Crusader AND normal weapon options plus an upgrade sprue you'd be paying £65.50.
Suddenly £48 seems really fething good.
Doesn't give me any extra models to use though. If I want crusader I get the crusader box.
Don't have particular use for the extra guns. Not good enough scratch builder to build extra hull.
Deathwatch land raider is still just one model you are pushing around. Usually I know which land raider I want when I buy the model.
Jetbikes and Bikes, Warwalkers, etc.
Vanguard Veterans, flamers of tzeentch. There's plenty of examples.
Last time I checked I can get no jetbikes, warwalkers, vanguard veterans or flamers of tzeentch in any land raider box so not sure why bring those up to post about land raider.
First of all: Yes, they should have access but I don't think it's very important nor makes or breaks Inquisition as a faction or the Codex: Imperial Agents as a book. Which I've already said. I've never suggested that they are walking force shield generators or would become ones if granted an invuln save. I've said that, judging by how essential some people think an invuln save is to an Inquisitor that one could think they are walking force shield generators, and thus wouldn't work or be playable at all without it (as a shield g enerator without a shield is pointless). I think Inquisitors - and the Codex: Imperial Agents - do not loose their right to exist just because Inquisitors don't have access to an Invuln save.
Right so they should have them - we agree - good.
If you actually read other people posts, No one said you could not play Inquisitors without them what we actually we said they should have them because its a sensible option and it fits the fluff. You then starting going on about shield generators which you repeat above which has not bearing on anything and implied that we somehow were deathstar power gaming or something which made no sense.
We repeatedly said that this was not the make or break point of the codex but was just one of the many failures within it. Bt you kept hapring on as if we were saying it was amake or break point which we NEVER said - just that it was
1) stupid not to allow a invlun
2) Against the lore
3) symptomatic of the lack of effort in putting this together.
As I've already answered I was under the impression that DCAs as Squads are a new thing. See above - SoB aren't an army of mine yet, so I'm not THAT familiar with the rules. My mistake.
Yep - as has been clearly established there are significant downsides to this new official dex, most notably the removal of the signature Special Character as an option in exchange for two rather pathetic detachments - one of which is clearly intended to give other Imperial Armies cheap access to Priests for deathstars. Its a shame and again points to lack of effort or interest.
The Navy stuff isn't ever part of the Inquisitorial Formation from what I can tell - and we haven't seen the Detachment that's attached to it, have we?
The other possible way to get a Valkyrie would be as a DT for e.g. the Acolytes, and that would be of the same faction as the Acolytes for sure.
*edit* Well, now that we KNOW that Valks are a DT, we can rest this issue, can't we?
Nope - because RAW they can't even start the game aboard them - hopefully this will be FAQed but currently its arguable if even the unit that buys them as DT can start in them, never mind the Inquisitor! What everyone is saying they should have done was made everything in this book Imperial Agents Faction - then there was no issue. But they didn't because?
reds8n wrote: "Codex: Adepta Sororitas OR Codex: Imperial Agents...."
.... wait....
.. does that mean there's a separate book coming ?
Ok that confuses things even more !! Interesting about the new Canoness and Prescion shots - can vehicles have them - either way its a little bit of good news!
reds8n wrote: "Codex: Adepta Sororitas OR Codex: Imperial Agents...."
.... wait....
.. does that mean there's a separate book coming ?
I was thinking the same until I saw that it was only the models special rules they were referring to. The digital and CIA both have the rules so I wouldn't look too much into this unfortunately.
reds8n wrote: "Codex: Adepta Sororitas OR Codex: Imperial Agents...."
.... wait....
.. does that mean there's a separate book coming ?
I was thinking the same until I saw that it was only the models special rules they were referring to. The digital and CIA both have the rules so I wouldn't look too much into this unfortunately.
Aren't the rules different, though? Acts of Faith changed, I thought.
reds8n wrote: "Codex: Adepta Sororitas OR Codex: Imperial Agents...."
.... wait....
.. does that mean there's a separate book coming ?
I was thinking the same until I saw that it was only the models special rules they were referring to. The digital and CIA both have the rules so I wouldn't look too much into this unfortunately.
Aren't the rules different, though? Acts of Faith changed, I thought.
The only special rules not listed with the Veridyan is Shield of Faith and Martyrdom, those didn't change afaik.
Here's a rules question. The Canoness AoF gives Hatred, what happens if you activated it after the first round of combat?
Lets say the Faith Test failed or you simply didn't do it when you or your opponent charged. So what happens if you activated it during the second/later turn of combat?
Just read through the leaked pages someone posted on imgur.
I have little interest on either SoB or Inquisition, but the Legion of the Damned detachment is simple and its command benefit very useful.
While it is sad to see that the Legionnaire Sergeant can no longer take combi weapons, the command benefit more than compensates for it.
Now I can wipe away the dust on my LotD squad in the shelf and use it more often.
Probably that then -- if they update the digital edition then we'll know.
.... presumably they'd have to remove the Saint from the e-version at the same time ?
Doesn't that seem like something that would cause some PR problems for GW? Updating a digital codex by removing information? When the updated Ghaz book came out, did it remove the Green Tide?
I have little interest on either SoB or Inquisition, but the Legion of the Damned detachment is simple and its command benefit very useful.
While it is sad to see that the Legionnaire Sergeant can no longer take combi weapons, the command benefit more than compensates for it.
Now I can wipe away the dust on my LotD squad in the shelf and use it more often.
I have little interest on either SoB or Inquisition, but the Legion of the Damned detachment is simple and its command benefit very useful.
While it is sad to see that the Legionnaire Sergeant can no longer take combi weapons, the command benefit more than compensates for it.
Now I can wipe away the dust on my LotD squad in the shelf and use it more often.
the_scotsman wrote: Hm. Now I'm trying to think - does the formation benefit of "Everyone gets Shield of Faith" they keep throwing around do...ANYTHING?
I'm thinking about who would not have SoF in the first place...and it seems to me they all have better than a 6++. Priests, Crusaders, DCA...
SoF doesn't improve your invuln save by 1 does it? Just grants a 6++, right?
You do get Adamantium Will as someone reminded me.
the_scotsman wrote: Hm. Now I'm trying to think - does the formation benefit of "Everyone gets Shield of Faith" they keep throwing around do...ANYTHING?
I'm thinking about who would not have SoF in the first place...and it seems to me they all have better than a 6++. Priests, Crusaders, DCA...
SoF doesn't improve your invuln save by 1 does it? Just grants a 6++, right?
Arco-flagellants could really use it.
If you take the Ecclesiarchy Battle conclave and Jacobus then you should (if they haven't changed the warlord trait) gain a +1 to your SoF invul to all units in the formation. Take nothing but Arco-flagellants and you have a 5+ invul +5 feel no pain unit that does 5 rerolling hits on the charge (per model) with either rerolling wounds or rerolling invul saves.
I have little interest on either SoB or Inquisition, but the Legion of the Damned detachment is simple and its command benefit very useful.
While it is sad to see that the Legionnaire Sergeant can no longer take combi weapons, the command benefit more than compensates for it.
Now I can wipe away the dust on my LotD squad in the shelf and use it more often.
Saw the LotD changes, little irritated. I’ve been working on a counts-as squad that I now need to re-jigger the gear on. The hard part will be finding a MM that works. The main reason I built him with a plasma cannon was the fact that I had an on the shoulder one. That and ignore cover plasma is nothing to sneeze at. Let’s see how much of the squad I magnetized.
For those who can’t see the pics:
LotD heavies are restricted to a MM or HF. Specials are plasma/flamer/melta. Sarge has a few swaps. He can swap his bolter for a chainsword/power weapon/fist (for normal points) and then take from a chart, where he has access to bolter/stormbolter/plasma pistol.
The inability to take a Plasma Cannon on the LotD killed my desire to make some. Ignores Cover Str7 AP2 blasts were going to be so cool.
Overall, I have nothing to gain from this book. No changes to Assassins vs. the White Dwarf rules or the digital Dex. Nothing useful for Deathwatch and a downgrade for Inquisition and Legion of the Damned. No go for me.
I seriously can't believe they made a whole new faction for valks (a fething transport aircraft) so nobody besides an officer of the fleet can actually start on the thing.
Last time I checked I can get no jetbikes, warwalkers, vanguard veterans or flamers of tzeentch in any land raider box so not sure why bring those up to post about land raider.
Go back to the original conversation. It was models that got cheaper.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And finally! Someone who knew the codexes did the review. Thanks, Goon!
Vankraken wrote: I seriously can't believe they made a whole new faction for valks (a fething transport aircraft) so nobody besides an officer of the fleet can actually start on the thing.
It increases the sales of Skyshield Landing Pads.
-------------------------
All those units moving to Elite Slots means more Kill Team options
Vankraken wrote: I seriously can't believe they made a whole new faction for valks (a fething transport aircraft) so nobody besides an officer of the fleet can actually start on the thing.
On the bright side, it’s a nice framework that FW can put things in.
Last time I checked I can get no jetbikes, warwalkers, vanguard veterans or flamers of tzeentch in any land raider box so not sure why bring those up to post about land raider.
Go back to the original conversation. It was models that got cheaper.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And finally! Someone who knew the codexes did the review. Thanks, Goon!
.
