I have moved from FL to AZ and I have been hanging out in LA for the last couple of weeks, so I have neglected my Article of my LVGT progress (see sig. below). I will be working on it again at the end of the week. But for right now I will show you the list I am thinking about.

The List

The list I am going to take to the LVGT is constantly changing, so I don’t know what I will end up with. I will post some slight evolutions of it, and what is (so far) the final draft.

I started out with St. Celestine. I like her because she can do a lot of things, and she can fill many roles. I had an a shooty Inquisitor Lord and Inquisitor, a Callidus Assassin, 2 SoB squads in Rhinos, a 6 person Seraphim squad and 3 Exorcists.

With the coming of 5th edition I changed out the seraphim for another rhino squad.

The final version:

Faith no more

Inquisitor Lord w/Liber Heresius, Scourging
2 Chirurgeons
2 Sages
3 Familiars
2 Gun Servitors w/Heavy Bolters
1 Gun Servitors w/Plasma Cannon

Inquisitor Lord w/Emperor’s Tarot, Psychic Hood, Psycannon
2 Mystics
2 Sages
3 Familiars
2 Gun Servitors w/Heavy Bolters
1 Gun Servitors w/Plasma Cannon

Calldus Assasin

9 Sisters of Battle w/Melta Gun, Heavy Flamer
Veteran Sister Superior w/Book of St. Lucious
Rhino w/ EA and Smoke

9 Sisters of Battle w/Melta Gun, Heavy Flamer
Veteran Sister Superior w/Book of St. Lucious
Rhino w/ EA and Smoke

7 Grey Knights w/2 Psycannons
Grey Knight Justicar

Exorcist w/Dozer Blade, Extra Armor
Exorcist w/Extra Armor
Exorcist w/Extra Armor


I am thinking about 2 units of 5 Grey Knights which will weaken them in assault, but with Shrouding and twice as many Psycannons will double their long range effectiveness, and give me 4 scoring units.

My early lists had 6-7 faith points, and now it is down to 2. Since there are only 2 squads to use them on, I do not imagine using them much.

The strategy of the army is to out-shoot the opposition. I have 2 Inquisitors with a lot of shooting backed up by 2-4? Psycannons with 3 Exorcists to handle the nasty stuff like enemy armor, Terminators and Oblits.

Neat. Looks horrible on paper...you have CSM model counts, so you've already done something wrong.

Now decide which Inquisitor Lord you want to have, and drop the other one.

It's illegal to have more than 0-1 Inquisitor Lord in an army.

Stelek wrote:Neat. Looks horrible on paper...you have CSM model counts, so you've already done something wrong.

I like small elite armies.

Now decide which Inquisitor Lord you want to have, and drop the other one.

It's illegal to have more than 0-1 Inquisitor Lord in an army.

One is an allied Inquisitor Lord from the Demonhunter codex.

Yes. I know.

It is illegal to do that.

That army isn't elite, btw.

Nice to see a non-cookie cutter army. I would like to see them combine both dexes anyway so you can take both sisters and GK's as troops without having to go the ally route. I too am used to running small elite armies and prefer having to think about tactics rather than no brainer uber lists.

Drop the tarot. With how army setup,etc. works this piece of wargear is obsolete...unless of course they FAQ it.

Capt K

The tarot does allow you to sieze on a 5+, I believe Karuthors.

CaptKaruthors wrote:Drop the tarot. With how army setup,etc. works this piece of wargear is obsolete...unless of course they FAQ it.

Capt K

My codexes are in AZ, but doesn't Tarot give you a +1 on the dice roll to go first?

There is still the dice roll to go first, it's just deployment after that is what has changed.

Blackmoor wrote:
I am thinking about 2 units of 5 Grey Knights which will weaken them in assault, but with Shrouding and twice as many Psycannons will double their long range effectiveness, and give me 4 scoring units.

Your unit of 7 Grey Knights with 2 Psycannons is 250 points.
For 254 Points you can get a 4 man squad of Grey Knight Terminators with 2 Psycannons that can move and fire 36". This lets them maximize shrouding.

Two units of 5 Power Armored Grey Knights with 2 Psycannons each is 400 points.
For 345 Points you can get a single HQ Grey Knight Hero with Psycannon and an Elite Grey Knight Terminator Squad of four with two Psycannons that again will be able to move and fire the full 36" inches.

rhinos - are they for moving walls or do you intend to actually load the sisters up in them.

kadun wrote:
For 254 Points you can get a 4 man squad of Grey Knight Terminators with 2 Psycannons that can move and fire 36". This lets them maximize shrouding.

Two units of 5 Power Armored Grey Knights with 2 Psycannons each is 400 points.

Without 5th edition being out, I wanted to load up on troops. Now that I have seen the rulebook, non-troops can contest. I do not have to be so troop dependent.

I wanted GK Terminators because they have a huge upside. Strength 6 power weapons, move and shoot 36", 2+ save, etc. I will certainly think about adding them (also Cent99 swears by them).

I like the idea of 2x5 Grey Knights better than 1x8 for several reasons, and I think I will at least go with them, but when I looked up my army list, I had 8 GK last.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:rhinos - are they for moving walls or do you intend to actually load the sisters up in them.

A little bit of both. If you can out shoot your opponent, they have to come to you. So early in the game they are useful as LOS blocking terrain, and then I can load up and move them out when I need to. They will also help me get my troops to where they need to be, and of course disembark the troops to lay down the heavy flamer and rapid fire where needed.

I like this a little better:


Inquisitor Lord w/Liber Heresius, Bolter
2 Sages
2 Familiars
2 Gun Servitors w/Heavy Bolters
1 Gun Servitors w/Plasma Cannon

Inquisitor Lord w/Emperor’s Tarot, Psychic Hood, Psycannon
2 Mystics
2 Sages
2 Familiars
2 Gun Servitors w/Heavy Bolters
1 Gun Servitors w/Plasma Cannon

Calldus Assasin

9 Sisters of Battle w/Melta Gun, Heavy Flamer
Sister Superior
Rhino w/ EA and Smoke

9 Sisters of Battle w/Melta Gun, Heavy Flamer
Sister Superior
Rhino w/ EA and Smoke

4 Grey Knights w/2 Psycannons
Grey Knight Justicar

4 Grey Knights w/2 Psycannons
Grey Knight Justicar

Exorcist
Exorcist
Exorcist

Still not perfect, but this is closer to what I am looking for.

Here is what I want out of my army: The ability to kill 180 Orks in 6 turns.

If only it wasn't illegal.

I can only hope to play it so I can table 200 points of cheat right away, then beat the rest.

Sigh. Then you'd say it wasn't a fair fight.

Oh well! Cheaters get what they deserve.

Stelek wrote:If only it wasn't illegal.

I can only hope to play it so I can table 200 points of cheat right away, then beat the rest.

Sigh. Then you'd say it wasn't a fair fight.

Oh well! Cheaters get what they deserve.

I asked the question in the YMTC forum a couple of weeks ago and not one seem to think it was illegal.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/211823.page

I guess when the LVGT forum opens up I can ask Dave Taylor if it is legal. Don't worry, I will not bring anything ruled illegal to the table. I always get clarification if there is ever a doubt.

Didn't even notice.

It's been illegal for a very long time.

0-1 Inquisitor Lord.

I think that, for this army, an eversor assassin is a better run than a callidus. They're close, but with infiltration always available in 5ed, you can pretty much get the pick of the table and go for a first-turn charge if you want to use him offensively, or use the 12" charge and hold him back in a counter-assault role if so needed.

I know the callidus lets you move enemy troops, but with less line-of-sight blocking terrain, I don't know how valuable that is (compared to 4ed - obviously it is of some use).

The eversor is a monster. My teammates and I ran similar lists in the team tournament this year, and the eversors were always useful, and pretty much won two games for us.

(And, yes, we were able to kill 180 orks in 6 turns with our similar lists)

Get those sisters books...

There isn't really less LOS blocking terrain from foot troop squads, which is what you normally move.

Eversor is a pita any way you cut it, but if he's not in close combat (especially so in the counter assault role) isn't he just dead?

I mean, any ole' lascannon or ML will see him off if he fails his invulnerable.

Or is he able to hide but the troops the callidus moves can still see...hmmm.

Just playing devils advocate.

The way terrain works is that it is true LOS. So if there is something a little bit taller than that Eversor, you can hide him.

I have used the Eversor in the past, and what you don't know about me is that I roll bad. So I get one or 2 extra attacks, and then he dies. Also with the 5th edition counter-assault like rules, he gets piled into means that he needs to kill a lot of a large squad to stay alive, and will get killed by orks.

The Callidus on the other hand has the Word-in-your-ear ability which is almost worth it by itself. The ability to drag a basilisk, vibro cannons out into the open, or to move a shooting unit behind some LOS blocking terrain, or just so you get a 4+ cover save is worth it. In my army build I have to out shoot my opponents so if I can move a unit of Dark Reapers, Devastators, Lootas, etc behind some cover so they can't shoot for a turn is a huge advantage.

Then add into it that she can show up anywhere, hits with a template weapon, and then can jump in and out of combat means that she is worth it.

Eversor is very useful - basically he can crunch 1/3 of MEQ squads by himself a turn, which means that your ordinary troops have a much better chance of living. If you wanted character assassination, then Calidus is golden, but if you want to rip up squads, then the Eversor is the best by far.

Of course, if you want to cherry pick out power fist sergeants, then a vindicare can be useful. Though they are really less useful since CSM Aspiring Champions got boned, so there isn't such a need to axe them.

I know how the LOS works.

*rolls eyes*

Sarcasm was intended.

She will probably have the H&R USR applied to her, so she might fail jumping out. Hard to say though, I'm assuming the WH FAQ won't be much use.

Do you have a theme?

Just Inquisition at this point.

I guess the reason why you would have these two Inq working together would be a Tzeentch infestation.

I am on vacation in LA right now an I have not been able to flesh it out. I will work on a proper theme in my article.

Stelek, you realise one of those Inq Lords is a WH ally, right?

tegeus-Cromis wrote:Stelek, you realise one of those Inq Lords is a WH ally, right?

Yes. 0-1 on Inquisitor Lords.

Not 0-1 on allied Inq Lords.

They don't say the special characters break that rule for nothing.

What is the DH Inq labelled as? The WH version states "0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord." Whether the DH version states "0-1 Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord" or just "0-1 Inquisitor Lord," it seems clear that they are different units with different limitations.

Just as clear as 0-1 'Venerable Dreadnoughts' in a SW army, right? Oh but if I take another Venerable Dreadnought and call it a Space Marine Venerable Dreadnought, it's ok? No, it isn't.

Sorry TC, GW ruled BS on this one a long time ago.

You can have only ONE Inquisitor Lord. You must take the special characters to bypass the restriction on only having one.

It's been ruled illegal to have more than one at the GT's for a very long time (since the two books were released).

I think it's an interesting list. Different from what people are used to seeing.

I believe the Inq. Lords are legal - FWIW.

What about more mystics in the other Inq retinue? That would let you get more shots at deep strikers even if you're spread out a bit?

You only get Mystics in a Demonhunter retinue...

Why isn't the Dread trick okay? Because you say so?

If the GTs have specifically ruled against it, then of course that's a different thing. Point is, by RAW, there is no issue--not that that helps Blackmoor if you're right about the ruling, since this army is headed for a GT after all.

C'mon Stelek, try a little. Your comparison is pointless

You can't ally SW with SM so it's a ridiculous comparison

if you COULD, AND the SW codex said:

0-1 Space Wolves Venerable Dreadnaught

while the SM codex called a similar unit a:

0-1 Codex Astartes Venerable Dreadnaught

ther WOULD be a quesiton of whether or not they were the same, and could both be taken or not.

Of course, this example doesn't exist. Oh, just like yours!

This isn't hard. Either it's legal or it's not. Their names are different, as are their wargear choices. One is an ally. Other than a written or verbal GW ruling that it's not legal, there's nothing in the rulebooks that says you can't have both.

Personally, I find it very likely that they made a ruling that says you can only have one. But no one has any reason to take your word on it, and trying to make fun of their perfectly valid arguments instead of actually refuting them does no one any good.

By RAW it's illegal.

I'm really quite amazed at how many people believe 0-1 isn't actually 0-1 if they can get a unit with the same name out of a different Codex.

The unit doesn't have the same name. If I have one Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord and one Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord, then I have kept to the restriction of "0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord."

No one said anything about allying.

Since you seem to have a right to make fun of a perfectly valid argument without apparently knowing the rules well enough to understand it, I won't "make fun" of you or your argument, and I'll explain it.

You can take 0-1 Venerable Dreadnought in a SW army.

However, if you choose to take it as a HQ instead of an ELITE...well, the SW book does say use the Dreadnought option from the SM Codex...and in that Codex, I can have a 0-1 Venerable Dreadnought as an elite.

Of course, nevermind the fact the SW Codex is so old and that rule was referring to the PREVIOUS SM Codex, where there were no 'venerable' dreadnoughts...yes, let's pretend like that isn't a fact.

Why is it illegal to take 2 Venerable Dreadnoughts as elites, but it's legal to take them as HQ and elite?

I'm not fooled or amused by this dance. Are you?

The same thing goes for Inquisitor Lords. You may only have ONE.

Why is it illegal to have 2 Inquisitor Lords in an army but it's legal when one is an ally?

Which part of 0-1 per army wasn't clear?

The 1, or the per army part?

Now let's see how many personal attacks come my way for merely stating the inconvenient truth.

I bet 10$ it'd be at least two.

tegeus-Cromis wrote:The unit doesn't have the same name. If I have one Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord and one Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord, then I have kept to the restriction of "0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord."

GW thinks differently than you do.

How do I know?

We asked when we wrote the AB files.

They said 0-1 Inquisitor Lord (any type) per army.

That's how it validates in AB, the way GW told us to.

I don't even know why I'm arguing this, people that actually play these armies are aware of this.

I am not making any claim about what or how GW thinks, only what they have written and what that unpacks into by rules of logic, language and everyday commonsense. If a store has a promotion where you can choose two free items from a list with a $10 purchase, but the conditions state that you can only choose a maximum of one Grape Soda, are you going to accept it when they tell you that your choice of one Grape Soda and one Orange Soda is unacceptable because you've chosen two sodas? I sure wouldn't.

I'm not sure how that correlates exactly.

Isn't this the correct one?

My promotion offers either of two free items from a list with a $10 purchase.

The list is two items long.

Grape, or Orange.

You still only get one Soda.

Thus, I don't play two Inquisitor Lords.

Btw, YOU sir know how to have an intelligent rules debate.

Thank you for that.

You guys heard it here on dakka....

Stelek called "Da rulz boyz" and they told them how its supposed to be played.

I guess Blackmoor's army is illegal.

Nevermind that they both may be 0-1 but have different names.
Nevermind that almost the exact same situation applies with Assassins, except they specifically address it prohibiting 2.
Nevermind that peeps have been doing this in tournement for a long time now with no issues.

"Da rulz boyz" said so.

Uhh never called the rules boyz.

Called Andy Hoare and Gav for the answer.

Emailed, to be more exact.

No one's been doing it at GT's since Demonhunters were released and Jeff Hall banned it in the US.

French fries please.

Stelek wrote:I'm not sure how that correlates exactly.

Isn't this the correct one?

My promotion offers either of two free items from a list with a $10 purchase.

The list is two items long.

Grape, or Orange.

You still only get one Soda.

What if the promotion said you can have TWO free items from the following choices:
0-1 Grape Sodas
0-1 Orange Sodas

Does it make sense that you can take 1 Grape Soda and 1 Orange Soda?

What if the rules say you can have TWO HQ's from the following choices:
0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lords
0-1 Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lords

Does it make sense that you can take 1 Hereticus Lord and 1 Malleus Lord?

Now if GTs have ruled against this then that is another issue. Could you provide links to those rulings if available?

Isn't this the correct one?

My promotion offers either of two free items from a list with a $10 purchase.

The list is two items long.

Grape, or Orange.

Well, my contention is that this isn't the case. In my example, the restriction on each item is independent of the other. It isn't that you may take only Grape or only Orange, but that you may take two things, but only one Grape and only one Orange at most. There is no restriction on Sodas per se, just as there is no restriction on Inq Lords per se. The restriction is 0-1 Grape Soda/Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord and 0-1 Orange Soda/Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord.

Maybe we should take this to YMDC. As far as this thread is concerned, what's more relevant is your claim that dual Lords is banned in GTs by fiat, which if true makes all this irrelevant as far as Blackmoor's list is concerned. Got a link or quote?

I really think you're wrong about this Stelek...

I've never seen anything prohibiting it FAQ or GT packet-wise, AB allows it, top teir players have used it within the past year in tournement play (one of which I know has regular dialouge with Jeff Hall and specifically asked him about it, so you're talking out of an orafice other than your mouth here)....

Not really worth it for me to argue it though, since I'm not using the combo in a tournement list.

AB doesn't allow it. I like how I said it doesn't, but you say it anyway. AB does not allow dual Inquisitor Lords. Please insert a quarter.

The combination that is allowed is the one provided for in the books--the special characters do not use up your 0-1 slot, and that's the one that's allowed at tournaments and that players use.

His name is Coteaz, and he has specific rules that allow him to be used and NOT use up your 0-1 Inquisitor Lord choice.

But of course now we'll hear about how that rule is meaningless too.

I guess this is why I stopped running the AB files. Too many know-nothings telling me what GW told me was bs.

It's well old already.

I would love to provide a link to GT rulings.

The US website is gone. Surely you noticed everything prior to 2008 is toast?

Since I'm sure THAT will be called a lie, here you go:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/articleCategory.jsp?community=true&communityArticleCatId=300005&articleCatId=300005&catId=

I hope that helps you in your tirades against what I say.

Stelek wrote:AB doesn't allow it. I like how I said it doesn't, but you say it anyway. AB does not allow dual Inquisitor Lords.

Stelek, without providing links or quotes you saying it doesn't and Deadshane1 saying it does, has the exact same weight.

You are basically using this as your basis for argument, "I'm right, you're wrong because I said so" which I'm sure you'll agree is not a solid foundation for debate.

Stelek wrote:AB doesn't allow it. I like how I said it doesn't, but you say it anyway. AB does not allow dual Inquisitor Lords. Please insert a quarter.
.

Wrong, I just did it on a fully updated AB.

As for the rest, after a quick skimming, I didnt see anything prohibiting what we're talking about. I could have missed it, I dont think so however....since you're wrong about AB prohibiting it, so far I'm not worried.

Sigh. Obviously you didn't as I have the correct version.

Please learn to use AB correctly. The errors appear in the bottom bar.

You are correct, Kadun. I'm saying what I know and who I know it from. Last I checked, deadshane isn't a studio dev and has never worked with GW on getting the AB files right.

Have you? Are you?

Screenshots of AB? Or links to GT rules packet or FAQ prohibiting this?

Remember, emails from the dev team are not rules.

Neither is Army Builder.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Why do you ask for rules GW has removed from their website? It can't possibly be stupidity, or flamebaiting, can it?

A screenshot of AB, sure that's easy to do. Coming right up...



This is the current version of the files.

Thats not Illegal It's alling Grey Knights With Witch Hunters.

It'd be a cool army. Not a Tier one army. So it's cool like the Army.

Shouldnt this follow the same rules as allied GD to LotD wich were illegaled? Same rule but diffrent name on the HQ..

Yes Kallbrand.

That was the line of GW thinking.

Same name, limited use.

Even when allied.

i.e. they closed the loophole.

I can show you how it's illegal in a GK army with a WH HQ if you really want me to, the message is the same. And of course it's illegal in a IG army, but everyone should know that (and why). I suspect some don't though, given the arguments used so far.

Well, since my fully updated AB must differ from yours, I call no joy.

Also, the point is moot anyway since how Ozy pointed out AB is not to be considered official. (often, its wrong)

I'll go with the phone chat that my Top Teir tournement associate had with Jeff Hall, saying that you're wrong.

Feel free to post more of your nonsense.

Stelek wrote:Sigh. Obviously you didn't as I have the correct version.

actually, YOU have the incorrect version. (see how this works?)

Stelek wrote:
Please learn to use AB correctly. The errors appear in the bottom bar.

I think I've got it down, since I bought a copy of issue 1 as soon as it was available and have used it for years.

Stelek wrote:
You are correct, Kadun. I'm saying what I know and who I know it from. Last I checked, deadshane isn't a studio dev and has never worked with GW on getting the AB files right.

So? You're not a studio dev, and AB doesnt matter as far as rules discussions. Whats your point?

Blackmoors list is in no danger from anything you've posted here.

I have the version off the AB website, which is more up to date than yours.

Regardless, your version isn't up to date. The last 5 versions (that's how far I checked, see how this works?) all share this validation error.

It's been around for years. Jeff Hall wouldn't say it's wrong, btw. He wrote the rules. Way to hang yourself.

Anyway, I guess I could care less. You seem more determined to insult me than actually participate in an intelligent discussion.

Erm nevermind.

Stelek wrote:I have the version off the AB website, which is more up to date than yours.

Regardless, your version isn't up to date. The last 5 versions (that's how far I checked, see how this works?) all share this validation error.

It's been around for years. Jeff Hall wouldn't say it's wrong, btw. He wrote the rules. Way to hang yourself.

Anyway, I guess I could care less. You seem more determined to insult me than actually participate in an intelligent discussion.

How am I insulting you? By calling you on your BS?

Once again, who cares about AB anyway, its not the rules.
Jeff Hall doesnt work for GW anymore, so that points pretty much moot, even though you were full of it as far as HIS rulings.
Gav and Andy Hoare emailed you....who cares?

Anyone who doesnt agree with you is apparently unable to hold an intelligent discussion, as per your cute little insulting sig...while you're talking about being determined to insult people.

I wont insult you, but it's my opinion that you're an arrogant idiot. I'm not calling you one, its just what I think. You should only feel insulted if you consider that true. I on the other hand (beating you to the punch) dont really care what you think of me.

Full of it with what Jeff Hall said?

Riiiight. All those silly FAQ's and on-the-spot rulings at GTs he made were just made up.

You did get at least one thing right...nobody cares.

You can take both inq. it's in the rules duh..

Deadshane, my blood pressure went down considerably once I used the Ignore button on Stelek.

I recommend that we all use this button and can continue this and other discussions in peace.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Ozymandias wrote:Deadshane, my blood pressure went down considerably once I used the Ignore button on Stelek.

I recommend that we all use this button and can continue this and other discussions in peace.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Why ignore him?

If you put him on ignore you miss out on peices of discussion where people put him in his place. (not saying thats what I just did)

Besides, I cannot be coerced by one such as him. I dont get angry with internet tough guys. Working in a jail with murderers, gangers, rapists and plain 'ol idiots gives me plenty of patience. If he makes me mad I'll just go into work tomorrow and headbutt some kid-toucher!

Your Taking a Witch Hunter Inq. Lord and Demon Hunter Inq. Lord that equal's the two HQ's you can take. duh..

Yea, I just double checked my codexes and the errata on the sites, and not only are the Inquisitors in question labeled as "0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord" and "0-1 Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord" not "Inquisitor Lord" only, there is no mention of them at all in the FAQs. (I did learn that Mancatchers now affect everyone who is engaged with the model, not just base to base, so it wasn't a wasted trip.) Given that both have different titles similar to Scout Marine Squad and Tactical Marine Squad, I see no reason why they can not both be taken.

As a side note, I looked at both Inquisitor Lord special characters as well, and no where in the Codex or the Errata did I see any mention of them counting or not counting as Lords in their respective Ordos. Whether Captain Angry Chair can then be taken with a O.H. Inquisitor Lord is I suppose questionable, though again, his type is not "Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord" so I would be inclined to say it is fine.

More on topic though, it is sort of wierd to see a WH list without Faith, or Seraphim for that matter. I am wondering if you are going to go with so little faith if it would not be more cost efficient to use storm troopers with plasma guns instead of Sisters? It might not make a great deal of difference, but it might let you put a few more GKs on the board, or maybe just a few more bodies in general. Without running the actual numbers, you might save enough points to replace 2 of the Familiers in each Inq squad with Acolytes with storm bolters or something.

It's not just the title its the fact that the rules say you can.

Witch hunters can take Demon Hunter Allies and thats a allied choice.

Done there should be no more aguring and Stelek looks like your wrong.

You sure do troll my posts alot.

No i dont this is'nt your post i'm just answering a question.

That you disagreed with when it's in the Codexes in plain english. And i was just poking fun that you were wrong chill out.

I dont troll i just disagree with you on some points.
And think its dumb that you talk down to people. Cause you feel superior for winning 10 years in a row. And i do ask you question's.

I've liked some of your ideas here and there and thanked ya here an there.

And btw if you are a Tactical genuis join the Army or Marines and defeat the world lol.J/K

I suggest you go with two 5-man grey knight troops squads naked at 150pts a pop. I have found their strength to be the WS 5 and str 6 cc weapons. You pay a lot of points for that and lose those abilities when they sit and shoot the psycannons. I think you'll kill more Orks if you shoot them with storm bolters and assault them with your better stats.

To keep the Orks honest, I would agree that a Vindicare is a better assassin. He will remove the powerfists from squads as the Grey Knights go in to assault them.

5 Grey Knights can be a load to deal with on their own. It's the str 6 power weapon of the Justicar that is the real power in the unit. Once again he is not optimized if the unit sits back and shoots psycannons. You already pay the points for him, use him.

Give anyone you can the Holocaust power. That also works well against horde armies.

Tarval wrote:Do you have a theme?

I thought about this last night as I drove for 6 hours through the CA/AZ desert.

I really like the idea of 2 Inq Lords with their retinues and allies going forward to do battle.

DarthDiggler wrote:I suggest you go with two 5-man grey knight troops squads naked at 150pts a pop. I have found their strength to be the WS 5 and str 6 cc weapons. You pay a lot of points for that and lose those abilities when they sit and shoot the psycannons. I think you'll kill more Orks if you shoot them with storm bolters and assault them with your better stats.

To keep the Orks honest, I would agree that a Vindicare is a better assassin. He will remove the powerfists from squads as the Grey Knights go in to assault them.

5 Grey Knights can be a load to deal with on their own. It's the str 6 power weapon of the Justicar that is the real power in the unit. Once again he is not optimized if the unit sits back and shoots psycannons. You already pay the points for him, use him.

Give anyone you can the Holocaust power. That also works well against horde armies.

I thought about Holocause for the Inq Lord, but he will not live long enough in 5th addition assault rules to use it. Grey Knight terminators on the other hand...

I do not want naked GK because I have to out shoot other armies as well. So I need them for Mech armies and to help down marines. Of course if I run into a demon army I think they will be valuble.

Although GK psycannons are some-what static, they are assault 18" so I can move a bit with them.

As far as I see it, the fact that Inq Lord special characters do not use up the 0-1 Inq Lord slot is there when you want to take 2 DH Inq Lords in a DH army, or 2 WH Inq Lords in a WH army, not for the situation in this case with allies having 1 DH and 1 WH Lord. Though again, I could be off.

Wherkind:

Yea, I just double checked my codexes and the errata on the sites, and not only are the Inquisitors in question labeled as "0-1 Ordo Hereticus Inquisitor Lord" and "0-1 Ordo Malleus Inquisitor Lord" not "Inquisitor Lord" only, there is no mention of them at all in the FAQs. (I did learn that Mancatchers now affect everyone who is engaged with the model, not just base to base, so it wasn't a wasted trip.) Given that both have different titles similar to Scout Marine Squad and Tactical Marine Squad, I see no reason why they can not both be taken.

QFT.

If a GT ruling or FAQ changes it, fair enough, but as far as RAW goes, there's clearly no problem.

I was mildly bemused that my OFFICIAL LICENSED INTERACTIVE ARMY LIST BUILDER from GW does not even list the Ordo Inquisitor as a Daemonhunter Choice! Yes, I've updated it with the patches.

Otherwise, I thought that the IAL might actually have answered the question, since when I hit the Witchhunters 4.0 with Daemonhunters Allies buttons the Ordo Inq. appears as an HQ choice for the army, but only Daemonhunter Inq. Lords appear in the allied section, no Daemonhunter Ordo Lord.

All the special characters appear as well.

I want my money back....

That is a different roll entirely. Seize the initiative roll is not a roll for first turn, since who gets first turn has already been established. Like I said, currently by RAW, it looks like Tarot is obsolete...unless they FAQ it.

Capt K

Stelek wrote:The tarot does allow you to sieze on a 5+, I believe Karuthors.

My codexes are in AZ, but doesn't Tarot give you a +1 on the dice roll to go first?

There is still the dice roll to go first, it's just deployment after that is what has changed.

The roll now is for table setup and the choice to go first. It isn't a roll to go first like the Tarot wording has. The RAW reading of it makes it obsolete..until GW FAQ's it.

Capt K

My codexes are in AZ, but doesn't Tarot give you a +1 on the dice roll to go first?

There is still the dice roll to go first, it's just deployment after that is what has changed.

The roll now is for table setup and the choice to go first. It isn't a roll to go first like the Tarot wording has. The RAW reading of it makes it obsolete..until GW FAQ's it.

Capt K

Deadshane1, I think you're breaking rule #1, I'm not saying you are, but it's just what I think.

See how ridiculous that sounds? Please keep the personal insults out of posts. They're honestly not needed.

Because of this nifty "shooting through units granting a cover save to the unit being targeted" thing... Would you want to consider some IG conscripts to give the cover save to your Inq's? The bodies may help AND you could also pick up some IG HW squads.

Just athought... for my $, an army lead by an inquisitor just has to have inducted guard.

ender502

Grey_death, I disagree and I think Stelek is the one that has broken rule #1.

I would go so far as to say Stelek sits atop a throne made from the bones of thousands of Rules #1. :-P Deadshane wasn't too polite either though. Being passive agressive doesn't help. Perhaps it isn't my place to say though.

I don't know abotu the Tarot either... but since it doesn't exactly have to get modeled (how would you?) it can be popped on and off depending on the ruling.

What do you think of the storm troopers? I was considering a similar sort of thing for an alternate list.

The way I understand it, the tarot will get you +1 to see who deploys first (and goes first) and/or a bonus to the initiative roll.

The WH item also sees some usefulness. Yes, you deploy first (or second) and you deploy...there.

Or they'll be nerfed to nothing given how good they are for how little they cost.

Ender you cannot have conscripts in a DH or WH army.

Sorry.

whitedragon wrote:Grey_death, I disagree and I think Stelek is the one that has broken rule #1.

This thread has tread the fine line between insulting one another subtly and actually trying to get to the bottom of a question.

But by stating that another user is an arrogant idiot, you're EASILY breaking the rules. I just wanted to remind folks that personal insults are not the way to make a poster or discussion go away.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And let's take the "Can you take Dual Inquisitors" debate to YMDC. Feel free to post a synopsis of the arguments here, over there.

But by stating that another user is an arrogant idiot, you're EASILY breaking the rules.

...and I never did that. I simply stated an opinion, at worst I'm guilty of derailing this thread a bit. As a matter of fact, when I posted the reply in question, I made absolutely sure that it was clearly my opinion that I was trying to convey.

I wouldnt want to question your moderation judgement, however, you cannot accuse me of any sort of name calling here. You're inflating the seriousness of what I've posted.

I saw your initial comment on this and understand that there is a fine line I'm treading, but we should leave it at that. I'm not commenting any more on Stelek at this time as a result of your initial post. That should be enough said on the subject.

Stelek wrote:Ender you cannot have conscripts in a DH or WH army.

Sorry.

I meant regular IG not the army entry "conscripts." I probably should have said "press-ganged IG."

ender502

ender502 wrote:

Stelek wrote:Ender you cannot have conscripts in a DH or WH army.

Sorry.

I meant regular IG not the army entry "conscripts." I probably should have said "press-ganged IG."

ender502

That is what I was thinking as well. just have your compulsory platoon and AF along with your CP, and then the 2 allied inquisitors.

The way I understand it, the tarot will get you +1 to see who deploys first (and goes first) and/or a bonus to the initiative roll.

The WH item also sees some usefulness. Yes, you deploy first (or second) and you deploy...there.

You could argue it that way, but that isn't how it is written in the description of what Tarot does. So by RAW, it is obsolete...unless they FAQ it.

Or they'll be nerfed to nothing given how good they are for how little they cost.

Well they definitely need to be FAQ'd that's for sure. Because right now, they don't work with 5th edition.

Capt K

As quoted by grey_death;
"But by stating that another user is an arrogant idiot, you're EASILY breaking the rules. I just wanted to remind folks that personal insults are not the way to make a poster or discussion go away."

Ok then what is the best way to make a poster go away? Please advise.

Darrian

Keep calling them an idiot, however subtly you might think you're doing it, and get yourself banned (but that also does other things).

Or use the ignore button.

Please, use either option.

If calling people idiots got people banned, someone would have been banned along time ago.

ender502 wrote:Because of this nifty "shooting through units granting a cover save to the unit being targeted" thing... Would you want to consider some IG conscripts to give the cover save to your Inq's? The bodies may help AND you could also pick up some IG HW squads.

ender502

I am an old fashioned 4th edition kind of guy who will use cover for his cover.

The big downside to using IG as a screen for cover is that anything that you shoot at will get a 4+ cover save as well, and that would be unfortunate.

In an emergency I could use SoB to get a cover save.

Blackmoor wrote:

The big downside to using IG as a screen for cover is that anything that you shoot at will get a 4+ cover save as well, and that would be unfortunate.

Huh? I didn't realize it worked both ways.

ender502

i was under the impression that you could shoot through your own models with no penalty and that only enemy models provided cover.

about the dual IQ lord issue, i remember hearing on multiple occasions from 2 or 3 guys who ran official RTTs that it is illegal (for tournament play at least) i forget what they used to call them.. the guys who would help with rulings and such but they weren't the GT rules judges.. it seems to me that the only way to get 2 IQ lords (of anykind) in an army would be to take the special characters.

You can screen your own guys. the 4+ cover save goes both ways. But, as far as I can tell from how the rules work, a screen of guys won't normally save you from a vehicle turret (nor the vehicle from you) due to the angle of fire.

There is a rumor that the IG codex will have rules or upgrades you can buy to avoid the 4+ screening by your own troops, but that obviously isn't in time for this tournament.