1 = No real idea, going to guess some kind of bubble effect for Leadership to represent the units trusting his/her wisdom.
2 = Reserve Roll Modifications or some kind of reroll.
3 = Better use of Orbital Bombardment ability if this Inquisitors come with that. Or perhaps a free Flamer attack?
4 = Preferred Enemy USR for a Xeno type of your choice.
5 = Personal Rerolls or Mastercrafting for attack/defense
6 = Hatred USR
Boob window . Boob window on an official artwork, for an Inquisitor . Really, GW, have you fallen this low ?
Troike wrote: Why have Sisters as troops in the Inquisition codex when the Inquisition codex is meant to ally to the Sisters, and can ally them in anyway? Seems a bit redundant.
Because else, you can't have Sisters and Marines and an Inquisitor in the same army. Except if the Inquisitor can be taken as an HQ in a AS detachment, but it's basically the same mechanics as allowing Sisters as troops in an Inquisition detachment.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Boob window . Boob window on an official artwork, for an Inquisitor . Really, GW, have you fallen this low ?
Yeah, that's a little odd for a xeno hunter to be wearing.
GW also released a female Commissar with cleavage armour, once. They're hit and miss in terms of clothing for female characters, at times.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Because else, you can't have Sisters and Marines and an Inquisitor in the same army. Except if the Inquisitor can be taken as an HQ in a AS detachment, but it's basically the same mechanics as allowing Sisters as troops in an Inquisition detachment.
My thinking is that either FW or the Digital Editions people miscommunicated in terms of how this will work, and gave us the wrong impression. It just seems odd to shove the Sisters in the Inquisition codex when they have their own codex. Especially when the Inquisition codex is meant to be an allies codex.
I don't really think it's odd for an Inquisitor to wear, they can really wear whatever they please if they want so long as they take a forcefield like they usually do.
She likely wears it to "negotiate" things better when dealing with men (and some women). If their too distracted by cleavage then they won't argue as much.
Mr Morden wrote: Plus a lot of Inquisitors have force fields so they can wear what they like.
That's a huge part of the problem. The fact GW decided to show an Inquisitor who likes to wear a boob-hole. Especially when preparing for a fight (or else, why is she clutching that chainsword so tight ?
As for ClockworkZion, I'm pretty a boob-window is not the right way to impress and scare people. If you are reminding those Guards of the women they meet in brothels, that's not quite like to make them feel like you are their superior and they have to respect and obey you. Not only it doesn't make any sense, but I find even the idea of boob window to “make negotiations easier” slightly offensive, actually.
Mr Morden wrote: Plus a lot of Inquisitors have force fields so they can wear what they like.
That's a huge part of the problem. The fact GW decided to show an Inquisitor who likes to wear a boob-hole. Especially when preparing for a fight (or else, why is she clutching that chainsword so tight ?
As for ClockworkZion, I'm pretty a boob-window is not the right way to impress and scare people. If you are reminding those Guards of the women they meet in brothels, that's not quite like to make them feel like you are their superior and they have to respect and obey you. Not only it doesn't make any sense, but I find even the idea of boob window to “make negotiations easier” slightly offensive, actually.
I think it only looks like boob window because of the cape actually.
Mr Morden wrote: Plus a lot of Inquisitors have force fields so they can wear what they like.
That's a huge part of the problem. The fact GW decided to show an Inquisitor who likes to wear a boob-hole. Especially when preparing for a fight (or else, why is she clutching that chainsword so tight ?
As for ClockworkZion, I'm pretty a boob-window is not the right way to impress and scare people. If you are reminding those Guards of the women they meet in brothels, that's not quite like to make them feel like you are their superior and they have to respect and obey you. Not only it doesn't make any sense, but I find even the idea of boob window to “make negotiations easier” slightly offensive, actually.
They don't need to dress to Impress, the mark of the inquisition pretty much says "If you don't respect this person and obey them, expect to die alongside your family."
And Zwei's post shows that they dress Eccentrically as well.
Mr Morden wrote: Plus a lot of Inquisitors have force fields so they can wear what they like.
That's a huge part of the problem. The fact GW decided to show an Inquisitor who likes to wear a boob-hole. Especially when preparing for a fight (or else, why is she clutching that chainsword so tight ?
As for ClockworkZion, I'm pretty a boob-window is not the right way to impress and scare people. If you are reminding those Guards of the women they meet in brothels, that's not quite like to make them feel like you are their superior and they have to respect and obey you. Not only it doesn't make any sense, but I find even the idea of boob window to “make negotiations easier” slightly offensive, actually.
They don't need to dress to Impress, the mark of the inquisition pretty much says "If you don't respect this person and obey them, expect to die alongside your family."
And Zwei's post shows that they dress Eccentrically as well.
IIRC there have been some Inquisitors who dress to impress in the past, and others who dress to keep a low profile. It all comes down to the individual and what their personality type and method of operation is I suppose.
I have been slow growing an Inquisition force through my GK.
Please let the assassins be cheaper in cost and more reliable/killy. As they stand, only the Vindicare is worth a damn with the others showing up and getting shot to crap before anything happens.
I already have an Inquisitorial LRC, Inquisitorial Vendetta (Sisters of Battle Gunner!) and the bits to make an Inquisitorial Rhino. I also have Hektor Rex, Solomon Lok, Karamazov, Coteaz, and 3 other models that are counts-as Inquisitors.
I wonder if we'll get normal Inquisitors, not just Inquisitor Lords, like we did in the Daemon/Witch Hunters in 3ed. That was a ton of fun.
0-3 elite choice or something, maybe even an upgrade for the standard retinue...
Mr Morden wrote: Plus a lot of Inquisitors have force fields so they can wear what they like.
That's a huge part of the problem. The fact GW decided to show an Inquisitor who likes to wear a boob-hole. Especially when preparing for a fight (or else, why is she clutching that chainsword so tight ?
As for ClockworkZion, I'm pretty a boob-window is not the right way to impress and scare people. If you are reminding those Guards of the women they meet in brothels, that's not quite like to make them feel like you are their superior and they have to respect and obey you. Not only it doesn't make any sense, but I find even the idea of boob window to “make negotiations easier” slightly offensive, actually.
I think it only looks like boob window because of the cape actually.
She's wearing her standard issue inquisitorial corset. The artwork is from Dark Heresy. I remember the guy with the hair on his face.
Ah, it's DH. Well I suppose it can be somewhat excused, then.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I don't really think it's odd for an Inquisitor to wear, they can really wear whatever they please if they want so long as they take a forcefield like they usually do.
And if the forcefield fails? I'd certainly prefer a all-armoured torso in that situation, myself.
there will be rules for using it as a stand alone allies list, and rules for it adding on to a sisters/gk list, and then allying that sisters/gk list with something else (a la red hunters)
I really hope it buffs assassins, as they are soo cool, yet soooo under powered/over costed.
I started and inquisition force wayyyy back when, will be glad to have it back soon. what a nice treat to look forward to in november
I'm not seeing what's so horrifying about that artwork; she's wearing a dress, not "boob armour", she's not in some cheesecake broken-spine-thrusting-arse-out-90-degrees comicbook pose. Are female characters only allowed to be depicted as musclebound tomboys that wear massive armour in combat and baggy casual clothes out of it now?
there will be rules for using it as a stand alone allies list, and rules for it adding on to a sisters/gk list, and then allying that sisters/gk list with something else (a la red hunters)
Pretty much this.
- (Small) independent army, excellent as an ally, but functioning even as a primary detachment
- Rules/options to integrate in imperial army (be it SM, IG, GK or AS) in a single detachment...
While waiting... Three assassins painted (culexus,eversor, vindicare) two basecoated (callidus, second vindicare)... Ok, it's kinda the second week they are waiting just basecoated, but rl has its priorities -.-
Not so much a fan of the new style of artwork, I know FFG uses similar stuff, but it feels a bit generic to me, not as cool as stuff done by Adrian Smith, Karl Kopinski, John Blanche and others.
Malika2 wrote: Not so much a fan of the new style of artwork, I know FFG uses similar stuff, but it feels a bit generic to me, not as cool as stuff done by Adrian Smith, Karl Kopinski, John Blanche and others.
Yodhrin wrote: Are female characters only allowed to be depicted as musclebound tomboys that wear massive armour in combat and baggy casual clothes out of it now?
Nobody said that. Speaking for myself, my issue with it was that an exposed torso is not a great idea for going into combat. Especially against nefarious, tricky xenos.
Xenos - they dont find humans attractive, so you could go dressed like that.
Deamons - they are trying to posses and/or take your soul, dressing doesnt matter
Heretics - they are into Daemonettes so humans dont count, dress whatever you want because you still have "only" two of them comparing to Slaneshy girls.
And as someone before me mentioned they have some very useful arcane protection.
Edit: Loyal citizen- I would really like to someone drooling over female or male Inquisitor.
Yodhrin wrote: Are female characters only allowed to be depicted as musclebound tomboys that wear massive armour in combat and baggy casual clothes out of it now?
Nobody said that. Speaking for myself, my issue with it was that an exposed torso is not a great idea for going into combat. Especially against nefarious, tricky xenos.
Bare thighs, too. Please, gribblies, feel free to slash at my major arteries, they are unburdened by clothing
ClockworkZion wrote:I think it only looks like boob window because of the cape actually.
So, is massive cleavage with every other part of the body covered describe it better ? And does it makes it better in any way ?
It simply makes referring to it as a 'boob window' incorrect. No excuses or anything.
Pretty much this. It was just me commenting on something I noticed.
Frankly with how flying rodent gak insane 40k as a whole can be getting bent out of shape on what one person is wearing in a bit of art seems a little silly to me. Could it have been done better? Yes. But it could have been a LOT worse too.
Yodhrin wrote: Are female characters only allowed to be depicted as musclebound tomboys that wear massive armour in combat and baggy casual clothes out of it now?
Nobody said that. Speaking for myself, my issue with it was that an exposed torso is not a great idea for going into combat. Especially against nefarious, tricky xenos.
I know that, I was using a rhetorical device to illustrate how silly I find the criticism of the art. What people were complaining about was nothing to do with "exposed torsos", because she's wearing clothing not armour, so her whole body is "exposed" from the perspective of protection in combat scenarios. What people were complaining about is that the art dares to depict a female character with visible cleavage, as if showing an Inquisitor wearing an elegant baroque dress with a décolletage entirely in keeping with the style is tasteless and borderline sexist.
As I said, if she was wearing plate armour with a giant hole in it, it would be ridiculous; if she was posed like a stripper angling for a dollar bill as so many sexist depictions of female characters are in comic books, it would be ridiculous; but this bizarre prudishness that seems to have arisen of late which can equate a woman in a dress with those previous things is what I myself find ridiculous.
Has this tangent ever gone anywhere productive or useful? Does it ever accomplish more than posters getting annoyed and accusing each other of being bad people?
Awful lot of projection going on. One can point out that there's a lot of bare skin on display for someone who's likely to find themselves in harm's way, without being a prude. Likewise, one can enjoy the art without needing to feel victimised because others don't like it as much. It's fine.
"Oh look I rolled a 4, looks like my ordos maleus inquisitor has dedicated his life to hunting aliens, this is in no way stupid."
That list just underlines how ridiculous random warlord traits really are.
Each Ordo gets their own Warlord Traits table.
It still sounds a little silly, though. Even in the context of an Ordo Xenos Inquisitor.
What's that, the alien hunter has dedicated his life to hunting aliens? Shocking!
Yodhrin wrote: What people were complaining about was nothing to do with "exposed torsos", because she's wearing clothing not armour, so her whole body is "exposed" from the perspective of protection in combat scenarios.
She does seem to be in a combat scenario, though. Or is about to be. She's carrying a chainsword and is currently holding it up, and her friend seems to have an energy ball of some sort at the ready. So it seems quite odd for her to be dressed like that. Also, Inquisitors do wear armour into combat, they wouldn't go in with mere clothing.
Yodhrin wrote: What people were complaining about is that the art dares to depict a female character with visible cleavage, as if showing an Inquisitor wearing an elegant baroque dress with a décolletage entirely in keeping with the style is tasteless and borderline sexist.
This sort of thing does tend to happen to female characters more often, though. But as I've said, my issue is with the practicality of it. If there was a male Inquisitor there with a bare torso, I'd find it just as odd.
Yodhrin wrote: but this bizarre prudishness that seems to have arisen of late which can equate a woman in a dress with those previous things is what I myself find ridiculous.
Don't be so quick to accuse people of being prudes, one can find fault in this sort of thing and be far from a prude. I myself am pretty okay with the Repentia, and they just wear rags into battle. But the reason I'm okay with them is that they have a good fluff justification for dressing like that. Our Inquisitor, meanwhile. seems to be dressing in quite skimpy clothing despite being armed and supposedly ready to fight.
If an Inquisitor is on the battlefield, as is the case with ones who can gain this warlord trait, then it's likely that they're more combat-oritentated.
Troike wrote: If an Inquisitor is on the battlefield, as is the case with ones who can gain this warlord trait, then it's likely that they're more combat-oritentated.
Doesn't have to be. Maybe they were excavating something, and then those damn Elder appeared?
To actually add something... the artwork doesn't bother me aside from feeling unfinished. It's not up to the typical standard i expect from GW. Other than that.... yeah, sorry, complaining that a game company is stooping to the level of putting tits or armor of questionable tactical viability is pretty futile. They all do it. It's like complaining about game characters fighting in high heels. Yes its stupid in a very literal sense, but it's an aesthetic that panders to the designers / company's customer base for the most part, so don't expect it to stop.
I personally would *love* if i could take an inquisitor as an HQ for an imperial army, that'd rock. I just am curious as to how many options it really will have. I can't imagine too many.
Though it would be nice if they had stormtroopers, valkyries and such like you see in the fluff, etc.
If this goes to print, i'll probably pick it up it's close to 50 bucks or so.
She does seem to be in a combat scenario, though. Or is about to be. She's carrying a chainsword and is currently holding it up, and her friend seems to have an energy ball of some sort at the ready. So it seems quite odd for her to be dressed like that. Also, Inquisitors do wear armour into combat, they wouldn't go in with mere clothing.
Actually there has been fluff of those that have gone in pure civilians clothing into combat, or stylized uniforms much like expensive WW1 general outfits that protected nothing and seemed more for showing off.
So yeah, it doesn't matter here.
If an Inquisitor is on the battlefield, as is the case with ones who can gain this warlord trait, then it's likely that they're more combat-oritentated.
Or they just want to loot Xenos artifacts, or study Xenos Combat techniques to report back with.
You need to expand your viewpoint a bit on why someone could be on the battlefield.
Some Inquisitors like showing off.................
Also going into battle in your evening gown relying on nothing more than the Emperors Will is hardcore - of course you also have energy fields and a armoured bodyglove underneath, but most people won't knotice int he firefight..
So my fav Inquisitor gets into fire fights when invesitgating - likely just has just her concelable armour / energy fields - when she knows there is going to be a fight - she takes her artificer armour with heavy flamer and heavy bolter. She takes time to look good doing both
The nature of the work of an Inquisitor means that they often have to fight when they are not expecting it - you can't wear heavy armour all the time.............unless you just restict your activities and investigations.
As I said before - at least the lady inquistor in the picture makes sure her hair is tied back so she can see what she and her enemies are doing - unlike ther male companion.
And of course we can go back to why exactly do all those Astartes and Sisters in Power armour not use helmits Cos we want to see their faces in images and models !
Yodhrin wrote: showing an Inquisitor wearing an elegant baroque dress with a décolletage entirely in keeping with the style is tasteless and borderline sexist.
So, metal bra is part of an “elegant baroque dress” ? Are those big metal ]I[ on her hands and arms also part of an elegant baroque dress ? Is that brown and plain cape also part of it ?
Also, saying cleavage with a pidgin French word may make it look better to English speakers, but for French-speaker it just makes it silly.
Yodhrin wrote: but this bizarre prudishness that seems to have arisen of late which can equate a woman in a dress with those previous things is what I myself find ridiculous.
Of course, it's not the same. It's a question of degree !
Mr Morden wrote:They might even be attending an event at the Govenors palace - hence their dress. Then the usual bad things happen.
I think some type of Inquisitors attend events at the Governor palace by trying to fit in, bringing only easily concealable weapon like digital weaponry, while other don't give a damn, and those kind can attend with a huge chainsword… but won't change their clothing either.
Haight wrote:Other than that.... yeah, sorry, complaining that a game company is stooping to the level of putting tits or armor of questionable tactical viability is pretty futile. They all do it.
So what ? Shouldn't stop us from complaining !
Also, concept art for Lord of the Ring Online
Who's to say she doesn't have some kind of energy shield. She could be one of those inquisitors that use alien tech and is sporting an eldar holo shield. If I were an inquisitor with access to that technology I would much prefer to be in lighter clothes as it would make movement faster/quieter and less encumbering. Although I do know where people are coming from with the whole half naked female characters thing.
Maybe she's trapped on some sort of xenos doomsday weapon and knows that destroying it will cost her life. She's going to sacrifice everything to protect the Imperium, and is all decked out in the most elegant 41st century finery so she can go out in style. Maybe the psychological effect of wearing nice clothes is a coping mechanism to help her go through with it. She'll destroy those aliens and look good doing it. For humanity. For you, you ungrateful prude.
Bull0 wrote: Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please
Don't like boobs? Fair enough.
But claims of it's "unrealistic" seem a bit far-fetched. It is 40K after all, with rampaging, cockney-speaking mushroom-hordes going toe to to with Space-Elf wizards on floaty motorcycles without wheels, and your suspension of disbelief breaks at cleavage-revealing clothes on an intergalactic female investigator serving a secretive order hunting otherwordly demons and E.T. conspiracies in the name of an immortal undead consuming gazillions of magic guys a day to power a galactic lighthouse that enables extra-dimensional super-FTL in space-drive capable gothic cathedrals? Really? The boobs are what break the camels' back here?
Jefffar wrote: You now, if you want to discuss boobs there are other websites out there dedicated to the topic. I'd suggest some but I might end up getting banned.
Now if you want to talk about the upcoming Digital Codex for the Inquisition, I can point you the way, just click here.
Cool, so we're allowed to talk about the book but not appreciation of the artwork in the book because you don't like that. Okie dokie. What would you prefer to discuss? We can talk about those 6 warlord traits a bit again, or we can wishlist nonsensically about the plastic henchmen box they're definitely not going to release. That'd be fun.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Actually there has been fluff of those that have gone in pure civilians clothing into combat, or stylized uniforms much like expensive WW1 general outfits that protected nothing and seemed more for showing off.
So yeah, it doesn't matter here.
Sources on those? I'm interested to see the exact nature of this fluff.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: You need to expand your viewpoint a bit on why someone could be on the battlefield.
So that entails being accepting of them being on one in quite inappropriate dress for the battlefield? I just don't think there's ever really a decent reason to have exposed skin if you're out on a battlefield. Especially when you're one of the most powerful people in the Imperium and likely have access to protection as good as power armor.
We've already established that one needn't be a prude to find fault with this.
Zweischneid wrote: But claims of it's "unrealistic" seem a bit far-fetched. It is 40K after all, with rampaging, cockney-speaking mushroom-hordes going toe to to with Space-Elf wizards on floaty motorcycles without wheels, and your suspension of disbelief breaks at cleavage-revealing clothes on an intergalactic female investigator serving a secretive order hunting otherwordly demons and E.T. conspiracies in the name of an immortal undead consuming gazillions of magic guys a day to power a galactic lighthouse that enables extra-dimensional super-FTL in space-drive capable gothic cathedrals? Really? The boobs are what break the camels' back here?
But those aren't quite the same thing. Those other things hardly have much choice over their circumstance. The Inquisitor, on the other hand, could easily dress more appropriately for hostile conditions.
thenoobbomb wrote: Doesn't have to be. Maybe they were excavating something, and then those damn Elder appeared?
Though her possession of a chainsword suggests that she was ready for combat.
Haight wrote: It's not up to the typical standard i expect from GW.
Not from GW, actually. This is from Fantast Flight Games, the people who make Dark Heresy.
Bull0 wrote: Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please
I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.
Though her possession of a chainsword suggests that she was ready for combat.
Though the choice of that particular weapon... actually even the existence of that particular weapon, especially in a relatively advanced technological society ... seems infinitely more nonsensical than her attire, assuming the availability of the kind of hyper-rational choices you claim she didn't make with her choice of clothing.
So that entails being accepting of them being on one in quite inappropriate dress for the battlefield? I just don't think there's ever really a decent reason to have exposed skin if you're out on a battlefield. Especially when you're one of the most powerful people in the Imperium and likely have access to protection as good as power armor.
This argument is rediculous. 40k is about heroics, not pragmatism. Just look at this classic from 2nd edition 40k:
Those blood angels should have shot those orks *wayyyyyyy* before they got so close to them. And that dude's not even wearing a helmet! GW don't know what they're doing
Bull0 wrote: Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please
I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.
I don't know where to start with this. For starters, nobody's saying it's socially unacceptable. Did you really think that's what this is about? I don't think so. I'm going to bow out here - this is obviously going nowhere.
Bull0 wrote: Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please
I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.
I don't know where to start with this. For starters, nobody's saying it's socially unacceptable. Did you really think that's what this is about? I don't think so.
If I find pre-existing examples of cleavage in GW artwork will you admit you're wrong?
Bull0 wrote: Nope - people have just as much right to call it out as you do to enjoy it, don't try and silence them please
I don't know what country you live in, but cleavage is considered acceptable in the UK. If people dissent with a socially accepted norm then yes, I can call them wrong.
I don't know where to start with this. For starters, nobody's saying it's socially unacceptable. Did you really think that's what this is about? I don't think so.
If I find pre-existing examples of cleavage in GW artwork will you admit you're wrong?
No because that has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you find me the quote where I said that since this is the first time GW have used breasts in artwork it's problematic I'll... I don't know because that won't happen because that wasn't the bloody point
xruslanx wrote: Those blood angels should have shot those orks *wayyyyyyy* before they got so close to them. And that dude's not even wearing a helmet! GW don't know what they're doing
Of course, that picture wants to look exciting. It wants to show off a brutal, over-the-top battle to draw people in. The Inquisitor artwork, meanwhile, just seems to be designed to give us a look at an average Inquisitor. What I take issue with is that it implies a hostile situation (which she was apparently prepared for) yet she has an exposed torso and leg.
Zweischneid wrote: Though the choice of that particular weapon... actually even the existence of that particular weapon, especially in a relatively advanced technological society ... seems infinitely more nonsensical than her attire, assuming the availability of the kind of hyper-rational choices you claim she didn't make with her choice of clothing.
I'd call exposed skin in a warzone a far less rational choice than a chainsword, myself.
Troike wrote: Why not explain your reasonining instead of making insults?
What reason can there possibly be for someone who things that a chainsword !!!! is more realistic (let alone rational) than a piece of exposed skin? Hell, what reason can there possibly be for someone who thinks that a chainsword is more realistic (let alone rational) than the moon being made from green cheese.
Seriously? It's a CHAINSWORD!!!! It's the ultimate and absolute expression of "let's throw any pretense of logic out and embrace ludicrous fictional madness for the sake of "It kinda sounds and looks cool".
Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.
Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....
ClockworkZion wrote: Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.
Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....
But Ceremonial Officer Sabres exist because, at one point in history, sabres were actually useful weapons to have in a fight. A chainsaw never was, never will be, except in Army of Darkness or 40K-style over-the-top-we-don't-care camp-fiction.
And even office-sabres are mostly on the way out. When was the last time you saw a Servicemen in the field in Afghanistan or so with an Office Sabre? They are not.. ya know.. very practical or "rational" to have in a war these days.
ClockworkZion wrote: Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.
Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....
But Ceremonial Officer Sabres exist because, at one point in history, sabres were actually useful weapons to have in a fight. A chainsaw never was, never will be, except in Army of Darkness or 40K-style over-the-top-we-don't-care camp-fiction.
And even office-sabres are mostly on the way out. When was the last time you saw a Servicemen in the field in Afghanistan or so with an Office Sabre? They are not.. ya know.. very practical or "rational" to have in a war these days.
Oh I know that in reality the Chainsword is basically useless, but the thought was that perhaps there is a completely logical reason for it....well logical for the setting at least..
Or it's a pretty picture meant to get us excited about the Inquisition.
Oh I know that in reality the Chainsword is basically useless, but the thought was that perhaps there is a completely logical reason for it....well logical for the setting at least..
Or it's a pretty picture meant to get us excited about the Inquisition.
Sure. There probably is a completely "in-setting" logical reason for her to have that chainsword, just as there is probably a completely logical "in-setting" reason for here to wear a dress with a bit of free skin, to the extend that a hyper-superstitious, new-dark-ages-in-space setting even makes use of "logical" in a modern sense.
That is the point. Troike applied "modern/present-day" logic/rationality to claim that a bit of exposed skin is irrational to have for somebody about to go into combat. But if you start applying "modern/present-day" logic/rationality to 40K, there are about a gazitrillion different things that should make your head explode long before you start even caring about things like exposed skin from a "rational" PoV.
ClockworkZion wrote: Just a thought: perhaps the chainsword is ceremonial in nature (much like Officer Sabers for some military branches) and what was a ceremony of some kind became a combat situation.
Or you know, we're all being silly because it's a piece of art with no real context.....
But Ceremonial Officer Sabres exist because, at one point in history, sabres were actually useful weapons to have in a fight. A chainsaw never was, never will be, except in Army of Darkness or 40K-style over-the-top-we-don't-care camp-fiction.
And even office-sabres are mostly on the way out. When was the last time you saw a Servicemen in the field in Afghanistan or so with an Office Sabre? They are not.. ya know.. very practical or "rational" to have in a war these days.
Well if you really want to get into the "rational" bits?
Inquisitors are not all frontline fighters. Inquisitors are what amounts to intelligence operatives for the Imperium of Man. Inquisitors are at their very core individuals. Some Inquisitors might be like Hector Rex, huge hulking figures who relish combat, while others might be like Solomon Lok and be more of the investigative nature.
By and large the thing that makes Inquisitors so useful to the Imperium though is the knowledge they and their retainers bring to the field. If their knowledge is used well by a commander it can make the difference between a crushing victory and a defeat.
Hell that art might not even be an Inquisitor but might be a pair of an Inquisitor's companions.
The fact remains that the kind of clothing we saw in that picture is bordering on the ridiculous considering the context. Why would a serious person like an Inquisitor dress up like a tart? Yes, I understand male fanservice is generally much accepted in many subcultures, but I'd rather have none of it in WH40K.
How would people react if this was the basis for GWs future male inquisitors:
Yes, an Inquisitor could technically wear any type of clothing. Yes, that means they could wear unprotective clothing (even if this is probably more rare than having you know, actual protective armor for combat missions). But why would they wear skimpy clothing? That's a type of clothing which signals submission, or desperation out of having no alternatives to attract attention/gain favours from the opposite sex. Wearing that type of clothing is very denigrating for a person. This or this type of clothing signals authority. This (or this) type of clothing comes off as unserious and as mostly meant to trigger sexual behaviour. If you view of female Inquisitors is that they are supposed to be some kind of space strippers who trigger sexual behaviour in male troops, I believe you are direly mistaken, both from a lore POV and from common sense. Now it's not my personal "prudeness" - or course I wouldn't mind if Slaaneshi cultists wore skimpy clothing or even ran around naked, but Inquisitors (or Commissars, as mentioned) are people of a quite different ideology (and in a different society) whom I'd like be given a serious treatment and not be subjected to cheesy fanservice.
Zweischneid wrote: What reason can there possibly be for someone who things that a chainsword !!!! is more realistic (let alone rational) than a piece of exposed skin? Hell, what reason can there possibly be for someone who thinks that a chainsword is more realistic (let alone rational) than the moon being made from green cheese.
Seriously? It's a CHAINSWORD!!!! It's the ultimate and absolute expression of "let's throw any pretense of logic out and embrace ludicrous fictional madness for the sake of "It kinda sounds and looks cool".
But getting something that'll protect you better in a battle better than your own bare skin is just such a basic thing for a warrior. At least the chainsword can serve its purpose of cutting people up, skimpy clothing just seems outright detrimental in battle.
Zweischneid wrote: That is the point. Troike applied "modern/present-day" logic/rationality
I don't think that there's anything particularly modern about protecting your body in battle.
Hell that art might not even be an Inquisitor but might be a pair of an Inquisitor's companions.
Sounds plausable - send in acolytes with all the trappings to stir up the court and watch what happens - see what occurs.
I get the argument about protecting yourself but conversely all the armies that weear powered armour have a good proportion of them with bare heads! The Eldar tend not to be as abad but even they have their culprits.
People have spent pages discussing the cleavage of a picture?
People are trying to apply terms like 'logic' and 'realistic' about a totally fictional archetype from a creation set almost 40,000 years in the future?
Well, from an internal logic standpoint, we have absolutely no idea how social conventions will have changed or evolved in that time, how on earth would all the likes of Maxim and FHM look to a Victorian? That sort of change in culture and acceptability has come about in just over a century. So nobody is in a position to apply modern sensibilities in an attempt to justify anything "in universe."
From a practical standpoint, it has been discussed, mostly in IG related threads, that a 'realistic' woman would be very difficult to portray at this scale while still giving a strong feminine look on the tabletop. Exaggerating the female elements is an easy shorthand to make the model look like a woman from several feet away.
As much as I detest the argument, in this case I can't think of any other thing to say other than "don't like it, don't buy it." But frankly this thread reeks of people posting not because they are actually offended, but because they feel they should be because being pro-feminist is the right thing to be.
I don't think that there's anything particularly modern about protecting your body in battle.
There are plenty of historical warriors/fighters that went to battle/war with less than "optimal" body armour. In fact, forgoing it may well be an act to demonstrate faith, courage, status, etc.. . Why do you believe that "leading from the front" is generally seen as a good leadership quality, even if it puts your command-structure under unnecessary risk of disruption, etc.
And even that, again, doesn't yet acknowledge that 40K is a purposefully hockey setting of Army of Darkness levels. Ash fights zombies with a Chainsaw. Ash doesn't wear a shirt. These things don't make sense, but they make the whole thing more fun precisely because they don't make sense.
People don't understand that artwork is supposed to be cool rather than an accurate depiction of events. Presumably these are the same people that rage about special characters never wearing helmets.
There is nothing different in that art then the rest of the game.
Its part of the setting, stop being a victim for victims sake.
More on the book, Are we going to see Sisters in this one again, are we going to see Xenos attachments, or Demons, or other stuff from the RPG?
I'm slightly interested by what I've seen here so far. I didn't even pay attention to the brazier until it was mentioned, and seriously its not even discussion worthy.
Some of the reactions are just background noise on the subject of the new book.
Sorry, objectifying women for the sake of it has never been an integral "part of" the 40k setting. If it were, I wouldn't be interested. Besides, even if it were, there would still be significant merit in challenging it, since 40k was dreamt up in the 80s - by and large, a less egalitarian time than 2013.
Since you've alleged we're being victims for the sake of it (don't really feel like a victim, since I'm a man), then I can equally say that you're excusing it because discussing it makes you uncomfortable/because it's inconvenient to do so/because you like objectifying women.
People don't understand that artwork is supposed to be cool rather than an accurate depiction of events. Presumably these are the same people that rage about special characters never wearing helmets.
Cliched and sexualised artwork is never 'cool'. It's perfectly possible to make good female miniatures or appropriate artwork without resorting to 'skin armour'. This is something that geek culture is unfortunately riddled with.
I don't really see the need for an inquisition codex, I would much rather that the time and effrot involved went into something with a much larger footprint like Ad Mech.
You know, screw the artwork debate. Although cool, it's not doing any justice for the book. I for one am excited for the book and am hoping for a super secret model release to follow up with it.... But one can only be optimistic when it comes to GW
People don't understand that artwork is supposed to be cool rather than an accurate depiction of events. Presumably these are the same people that rage about special characters never wearing helmets.
Cliched and sexualised artwork is never 'cool'. It's perfectly possible to make good female miniatures or appropriate artwork without resorting to 'skin armour'. This is something that geek culture is unfortunately riddled with.
And yet that being said, the other side of the fence is just as bad. The people that get offended or upset the minute they see such a thing based solely on principle and then tear other people a new one for giving into 'sexualised geek cliches' are just as bad as those who loll over pencil sketched boobs. Different tastes for different people, and it really isn't worth such a personalized debate on the internet; we can all be keyboard warriors but it doesn't say anything about us or the situation.
I suppose it comes down to "rule of cool", and how much or to what extreme you're willing to accept, which varies. It seems we're at an impasse in that regard anyway, so it's probably not going anywhere.
Though, just to address this so that my argument is not mistaken:
azreal13 wrote: But frankly this thread reeks of people posting not because they are actually offended, but because they feel they should be because being pro-feminist is the right thing to be.
That's rather presumptous. Personally, my main complaint is that it is odd for a powerful individual in an apparently hostile situation to dress like that. Nothing much to do with feminism. And I'm not particularly offeneded either, I just thought it was an interesting debate. I still quite want to buy this codex at some point, despite focusing on my SoB army. I just see an issue with a piece of artwork within it.
Grot 6 wrote: More on the book, Are we going to see Sisters in this one again
Nah. They have their own codex, and this Inquisition codex is meant to ally to others.
Grot 6 wrote: are we going to see Xenos attachments, or Demons, or other stuff from the RPG?
Well the Ordo Xenos Inquisitor can have xenos tech in one of their warlord traits, and I'm assuming that Daemonhosts will still be a thing.
Palindrome wrote: I don't really see the need for an inquisition codex
Honestly, despite it being called one, I wouldn't call it a proper codex. They said it themselves. it's meant to be allied to other Imperial armies. I think of it more as a supplement for every Imperial army, myself.
That's rather presumptous. Personally, my main complaint is that it is odd for a powerful individual in an apparently hostile situation to dress like that. Nothing much to do with feminism.
Probably fair to say that you don't really "get" art. It's not supposed to be an accurate representation of what could or should be happening, it's supposed to be appealing or meaningful. Clearly this piece of art fulfills the first of these criteria.
Cliched and sexualised artwork is never 'cool'. It's perfectly possible to make good female miniatures or appropriate artwork without resorting to 'skin armour'. This is something that geek culture is unfortunately riddled with.
A perfectly normal cleavage as you'd see it on the streets every day isn't "skin armour", nor is it sexualised artwork.
There are very, very good reasons to oppose the kind of sexualized poses and depictions all to common in comics, etc..,
But this isn't one of them. And going to the extreme opposite with a sort of radical-islam/puritan opposition to even the slightest hint of exposed skin or sensual curves on women (art or otherwise) doesn't have a strong track record of helping women rights either.
Damn folks some of you really need to chill out a bit, its hardly a full frontal and there may well be a good reason for it in context anyway, some people.....
thenoobbomb wrote: People seem to be forgetting the main rule of female armor in fantasy and science/fiction:
'The more skin you see, the better it protects!'
It's true, it's really true. Otherwise how to the IG with T-Shirts get a better armour save then Termagaunts?
xruslanx wrote: As far as I'm aware, critisising artwork for not being realistic is not a valid critisism - people don't slag off the sistene chapel because Adam has a belly button.
I've already acknowledged we're at an impasse due to the apparent inherent subjectivity of the matter. There's not a lot to be gained in continuing this, it seems that neither of us will convince the other.
I'm guessing retinue members (like what Corteaz does) and maybe Inquisitorial Stormtroopers for troops. Possibly Chimeras as their dedicated transport. It is an allies codex, so I'm not expecting anything too radical.
Troike wrote: I'm guessing retinue members (like what Corteaz does) and maybe Inquisitorial Stormtroopers for troops. Possibly Chimeras as their dedicated transport. It is an allies codex, so I'm not expecting anything too radical.
Inquisition Codex, nothing too radical. I see what you did there!
azreal13 wrote: Inquisition Codex, nothing too radical. I see what you did there!
Ha! That was actually entirely unintended.
Though seeing as how one could have a retinue including Daemonhosts, I'd say that you can quite easily play a radical Inquisitor with this. Though mine would be puritan as feth, with SoB in his or her retinue. Edit: these SoB would be proxying warrior acolytes with power armour, btw.
psychadelicmime wrote: YES!!! So glad that this is real! I just hope we get models with it
Hmmm. Don't like trying to bring you down, but we might not. They didn't bring Kyrinov back for the SoB release, so they might not bring the missing Inquisitors back for this. :-/
Though, of course, this is just speculation on my part. They could well come out with new plastic versions of the Inquisitors with this codex, seeing as it doesn't have the modelling issues of the SoB and is unlikely to get become a proper standalone army for the foreseeable future.
What I'm hoping for is actually supplementing into Force Orgs versus allies. I would love to give Repentia a preacher or two, an Inquisitor, and an assault vehicle. They'd actually be worth it!
TheKbob wrote: What I'm hoping for is actually supplementing into Force Orgs versus allies. I would love to give Repentia a preacher or two, an Inquisitor, and an assault vehicle. They'd actually be worth it!
Repentia in a Redeemer or a Crusader? I'd play that!
What I'm hoping for is actually supplementing into Force Orgs versus allies. I would love to give Repentia a preacher or two, an Inquisitor, and an assault vehicle. They'd actually be worth it!
It would be nice indeed if they could just slip into our current forces instead of using them as allies, I would much prefer it that way.
I am just happy that they are giving us something, the Inquisition always interested me a lot, almost as much as the mechanicum.
People have spent pages discussing the cleavage of a picture?
People are trying to apply terms like 'logic' and 'realistic' about a totally fictional archetype from a creation set almost 40,000 years in the future?
Well, from an internal logic standpoint, we have absolutely no idea how social conventions will have changed or evolved in that time, how on earth would all the likes of Maxim and FHM look to a Victorian? That sort of change in culture and acceptability has come about in just over a century. So nobody is in a position to apply modern sensibilities in an attempt to justify anything "in universe."
From a practical standpoint, it has been discussed, mostly in IG related threads, that a 'realistic' woman would be very difficult to portray at this scale while still giving a strong feminine look on the tabletop. Exaggerating the female elements is an easy shorthand to make the model look like a woman from several feet away.
As much as I detest the argument, in this case I can't think of any other thing to say other than "don't like it, don't buy it." But frankly this thread reeks of people posting not because they are actually offended, but because they feel they should be because being pro-feminist is the right thing to be.
I'm with you. This thread has gotten incredibly stupid. I can either triangle myself for an alert, or hope a mod comes in here and calms things down. Seriously...I was actually excited about this, and now it's just a headache.
Alpharius wrote:I think it might be time to take this particular debate to its own thread somewhere else, and then attempt to lurch this one back on topic.
Thanks!
Mannahnin wrote:Let's save the discussion of skin and art for another thread; okay folks?
Several have tried, apparently other posters feel this doesn't apply to their part of the argument.
When does this go up for pre-order? Is it at the end of the month or sooner? I'm super excited for this one, although I am slightly concerned that I will end up buying it only to find that it is mostly just fluff with like one unit option. Haha.
I'm liking the looks of this so far, let's hope that it's a solid book and gives good background. Would like to see some solid stuff on the Ordo Xenos.
Hoping for a solid Troops choice or two from this codex, would love to have a small (600 pointish) playable army just from Inquisition codex. Something decent for inquisitorial storm troopers would suffice and could be good to convert up.
I'm feeling that for it to really fit into the fluff I've read that it will just be an Inquisitor and his retinue... then MAYBE a small troop selection... but it's still exciting.
Matt1785 wrote: When does this go up for pre-order? Is it at the end of the month or sooner? I'm super excited for this one, although I am slightly concerned that I will end up buying it only to find that it is mostly just fluff with like one unit option. Haha.
I'm liking the looks of this so far, let's hope that it's a solid book and gives good background. Would like to see some solid stuff on the Ordo Xenos.
Matt1785 wrote: When does this go up for pre-order? Is it at the end of the month or sooner? I'm super excited for this one, although I am slightly concerned that I will end up buying it only to find that it is mostly just fluff with like one unit option. Haha.
I'm liking the looks of this so far, let's hope that it's a solid book and gives good background. Would like to see some solid stuff on the Ordo Xenos.
It comes out this month but they haven't said when just yet.
If I was to wishlist in the extreme, some form of framework to create unique inquisitorial aides would be awesome, so the assassin, the bodyguard, the hacker etc etc. Sort of a mini SC creation system, perhaps an evolution of the Royal Court/whatever the DE version was called rules.
I wonder if the Assassinorum will get wrapped up into this at all? I think it would be sweet to get some assassins placed into this as well. I know not everyone was a fan of them, but it would be cool to put into this.
Overall like I said, I can't wait and I'll be pre-ordering next week then. Great!
The current GK Assassins need a points redux, someway to increase speed, a way of negating overwatch, and the ability to assault upon arrival a la Ymgarls.
It's really sad that the Vindicare is the only one that's worth it. The others are just too slow to be useful. I could see the Cullexus(sp?) Assassin being amazing versus psyker deathstars, but his wounds would have to be auto-perils (hilarious) and he'd have to be faster.
Someway for Assassins to blink around the table would be more fitting of their stealth and speed.
Ok, I created a new topic where people interested could continue the off-topic discussion without annoying those that wish to discuss actual rumors and speculations about the new Inquisition codex.
I hope it's okay by the rules of Dakka Dakka. It's here.
On topic, I think “It won't contain any marines” is the best phrase GW ever wrote, and I sure hope they'll write it much much more often in the future .
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Ok, I created a new topic where people interested could continue the off-topic discussion without annoying those that wish to discuss actual rumors and speculations about the new Inquisition codex.
I hope it's okay by the rules of Dakka Dakka. It's here.
On topic, I think “It won't contain any marines” is the best phrase GW ever wrote, and I sure hope they'll write it much much more often in the future .
Sometimes it doesn't need to be said though. I mean no one ever asks if the Ork Codex will have Marines in it.
I think it we will get inquisitor HQ's, very customizable along the three ordos paths,
possibly each with a special unit that they unlock,
hopefully inquisitor elites again as well.
a special unit for each, likely troops along the lines of stormtroopers/indoctrinated guard/henchmen. maybe possibly hopefully deathwatch as well, but who knows.
It seems to me, like it or parts of it will be something that GK and SOB can take, as if it were their own codex choice
To all you people complaining about seeing a breast grow the F up. Maybe instead they should have showed a bulky woman with cropped short hair and ill fitting camo as the inquisitor.
easysauce wrote: I think it we will get inquisitor HQ's, very customizable along the three ordos paths,
possibly each with a special unit that they unlock,
hopefully inquisitor elites again as well.
a special unit for each, likely troops along the lines of stormtroopers/indoctrinated guard/henchmen. maybe possibly hopefully deathwatch as well, but who knows.
It seems to me, like it or parts of it will be something that GK and SOB can take, as if it were their own codex choice
Deathwatch is a no go. No Marines in the book according to GWDE.
It's up for pre-order on November 9th, to be precise. UK timezone. Probably another midnight launch, though it might just come before then. I presume that the actual release will be a week later.
Matt1785 wrote: I wonder if the Assassinorum will get wrapped up into this at all?
Possibly. They're more connected to the Inquisition than the GK.
On a related note, I'm wondering if this means that the GK will be Inquisition-free in their next codex? Considering that the Inquistion just got its own codex, it'd seem odd to have an army being standalone as well as being fully intergrated into another army.
Will this be made into print at some point? I heard that Black Legion would be made into a book so I am waiting for that, I'll do the same for this if I can. I like actual books for the game book shelf.
Probably. Cruddace said that they'd print the SoB codex if it sold well (which it apparently has! woo!), so I presume that this will get the same treatment.
If the Inquisitional stuff is meant to be playable within other Imperium Codexes, I wonder how it will specifically be integrated. I am thinking it could have a 0-1 or 0-2 restriction when used in other codexes. Maybe a rule where you can't use its contents as your mandatory HQ and Troop choices in other armies.
I assume here will be something that stops you from fielding a Space Marine army that has a couple of Inquisitors, some assassins, a handful of inquisitorial warbands and the rest is Devastators Centurions and Bike Squads.
Related note, Grav Weapons for the Inquisition - think they will be there?
Maybe she just cleverly painted the strongest parts of her armor to look that way from a distance so that an unaware enemy might attempt to strike her where she is actually strongest? Very Clever Lady Inquisitor! Very clever!
I think Ordo Xenos stands to be a real upsetter and a chance for GW to balance out the meta to add in units that can annihilate some of the power builds that have rerollable 2+ saves; the dumbest thing GW has done to the meta.
More places to put Plasma Syphons would make Tau pucker and a clarifications on condemners, and like weaponry, would get rid of Seer Councils and what not.
I see the model selection as being tepid but the wargear being the "make or break" on whether or not we see the Big I on the table more.
Disappointed that Ordo Xenos does not have Deathwatch, seems like a missed trick to me as the current Deathwatch rules are very old.
In an ideal world I would have loved to have seen Arbites in this codex as well as Sisters of Silence, but I know it won't happen as GW Digital have confirmed that there won't be any new models.
tyrannosaurus wrote: Disappointed that Ordo Xenos does not have Deathwatch, seems like a missed trick to me as the current Deathwatch rules are very old.
And miss out on the chance to sell another digi-dex?
tyrannosaurus wrote: Disappointed that Ordo Xenos does not have Deathwatch, seems like a missed trick to me as the current Deathwatch rules are very old.
And miss out on the chance to sell another digi-dex?
Ithink itwillnot be necessary, assuming we got hints right so far...
If there are options to integrate =][= force within imperial armies, one might make a sm army, paint it black, and add inquisitors. And choosing chapter tactics...
Back on the Inquisition codex, my guess (my hope?) is somethning along these lines:
HQ Inquisitor, one each ordo (two, if differentiating radical and puritan), lord upgrade if independent detachment
Special characters/famous Inquisitors (old and new... Inq. Valeria demonstrates a stat line doesn't need a model)
Elite
Assassins (add temple venenum and vanus, please!)
Troops
Henchmen (options dependant on ordo?)
Storm troopers
+ dedicated chimeras
Fast
Flyer?
Dca strike unit?
Something along these lines
Heavy
Heavy infantrty (as in: heavy weapons alcolytes and/or servitors)
Orbital strike in some form
Well if it's a 'Full Codex' they would need a troops choice. So unless Retinue are now Troops choices there has to be something there that's already represented with models.
I think the thing I'm most exvited about is the wargear list. Someone said earlier the wargear will make or break the dex in terms of usefulness, which I agree with but hopefully it'll also offer up some cool modelling oppotunities.
evildrcheese wrote: I think the thing I'm most exvited about is the wargear list. Someone said earlier the wargear will make or break the dex in terms of usefulness, which I agree with but hopefully it'll also offer up some cool modelling oppotunities.
D
Actually, seeing as we get Warlord traits for each Office, does that mean we are getting separate Artifact tables?
The main reason I brought them up as a possibility was them being an option in the past. Doesn't mean we WILL see them, but I thought it was a notion at least worth entertaining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Actually, seeing as we get Warlord traits for each Office, does that mean we are getting separate Artifact tables?
That's a good question actually. Honestly i wouldn't surprise me much if that was the case.
The main reason I brought them up as a possibility was them being an option in the past. Doesn't mean we WILL see them, but I thought it was a notion at least worth entertaining.
Look no one wants Inquisitorial Storm Troopers more than me. I specifically got 60 Kasrkin and 6 Valks ages ago to act as my airborne Inquisitorial strike force (utterly useless on the table top, but damn fun!) but I don’t think Storm Troopers will return. I have my reasons for thinking this, reasons I can’t actually talk about, but suffice to say it I will be surprised if we get Inquisitorial Storm Troopers.
The main reason I brought them up as a possibility was them being an option in the past. Doesn't mean we WILL see them, but I thought it was a notion at least worth entertaining.
Look no one wants Inquisitorial Storm Troopers more than me. I specifically got 60 Kasrkin and 6 Valks ages ago to act as my airborne Inquisitorial strike force (utterly useless on the table top, but damn fun!) but I don’t think Storm Troopers will return. I have my reasons for thinking this, reasons I can’t actually talk about, but suffice to say it I will be surprised if we get Inquisitorial Storm Troopers.
Haight wrote: It's not up to the typical standard i expect from GW.
Not from GW, actually. This is from Fantast Flight Games, the people who make Dark Heresy.
I know, yet it is in one of their products, so even if they are subcontracting the art out, i expect it to be up to the level of standards i'm accustomed to when i shell out 50 bucks for a supplement like Farsight codex, or Iyanden.
If all the art was of that pics quality... yeah... i'd google image the 4 pages of rules each supplement has and pass. I buy them because they are really nice, pretty books. I expect that high standard, or i won't be buying them anymore.
Just my two cents on it - if it's in the book, i don't really care who did the actual piece, it should be up to GW's typical standards for a codex (and yes, i know there have been exceptions, everyone relax and stop racing to post the cover of Blood Angel's 5th ed codex, i get it, i didn't buy that one either).
I guess that they're doing it to cut corners. "Why go to the expense of making lots of new art when we can use some of this abundant third-party art?".
I'll be interested to see if this trend at all continues into the proper codexes rather than just being a digital thing.
To be on topic, however, if there won't be Storm Troopers, what is really left? I find it hard to believe it'll just be the GK Henchmen section or the Sisters battle conclave. Inquisitorial Storm Troopers are one of the hallmarks of the Inquisition, used by every ordos, present in almost every warzone that the Inquisition has any real interest in, where it be Armaggedon (listed in the force dsposition specifically) to the 13th Black Crusade or the Damocles Gulf. Hell, the way GW writes it, you can't throw a rock without hitting a company of these guys.
That being said (and I'm getting real clever here, so hold on to your hats) I can already thnik of a way to do it if they're not present.
Step 1) Take whatever's in this inqusition book
Step 2) DKoK Assault Brigade as the primary detachment; "Grenadiers" are troops, which are stormtroopers without deepstriking or special operations, but only 12ppm, WS4 and don't take tests for being shot at, and can take a special upgraded (though more expensive) Chimera as a dedicated transport.
You don't neccessarily need to use DK models, so just use the existant awesome stormtroopers and go nuts. The only downside is they don't have a Lord Commissar HQ equivalent, so no Cain stand ins I'm afraid, and the Dk Company Command squad is a touch expensive, but has some fun upgrades which wouldn't be out of place in an Inquisition force. Can't do a Valkyrie list unfortunately, the only aircraft available are Imperial Navy strkecraft as Heavy Supports.
Troike wrote: the SoB codex if it sold well (which it apparently has! woo!)
Really ? Where did you get that information ?
While I got no ideas how well the digital book sold.. SoB in general are a pretty good return on investment.. Hmm make metal models in 1997 and sell them for 3$ each, now they're selling those SAME MODELS for 10$ each!
Troike wrote: the SoB codex if it sold well (which it apparently has! woo!)
Really ? Where did you get that information ?
While I got no ideas how well the digital book sold.. SoB in general are a pretty good return on investment.. Hmm make metal models in 1997 and sell them for 3$ each, now they're selling those SAME MODELS for 10$ each!
Bolter Sisters actually cost $5.75 each when you do the math. But yes, the prices are a bit nuts.
Maybe they'll bring back some of the missing Inquisition minis. Some of the Henchman (Servo-Skulls and Cherubim) are unavailable (I think... I'm pretty sure?).
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe they'll bring back some of the missing Inquisition minis. Some of the Henchman (Servo-Skulls and Cherubim) are unavailable (I think... I'm pretty sure?).
I would be very surprised to see those come back. The Servo-Skulls and Cherubim purportedly caused problems with the molds.
It's very interesting when you find out things like that as it makes so much more sense in regards to some things, like my poor defunct Inquisitor Vindicare Assassin...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Maybe they'll bring back some of the missing Inquisition minis. Some of the Henchman (Servo-Skulls and Cherubim) are unavailable (I think... I'm pretty sure?).
Servo-Skulls were used for one of GK's equipment, the anti-deepstrike/reserve zone range.
Though I would love the return of every single henchmen ever made.
Kanluwen wrote: I would be very surprised to see those come back. The Servo-Skulls and Cherubim purportedly caused problems with the molds.
Well the Servo Skulls are about the most minimalist minis GW's ever made. A skull (their fav thing in the world) with a few doo-dads on it, and then a tiny thin pole and the slot that goes into the base. Wouldn't surprise me if these things kept breaking in the mould.
I'm glad I have about 4 of 'em from the old days. No Cheribum though. Those things kinda spook me out.
Kanluwen wrote: It's very interesting when you find out things like that as it makes so much more sense in regards to some things, like my poor defunct Inquisitor Vindicare Assassin...
Kanluwen wrote: I would be very surprised to see those come back. The Servo-Skulls and Cherubim purportedly caused problems with the molds.
Well the Servo Skulls are about the most minimalist minis GW's ever made. A skull (their fav thing in the world) with a few doo-dads on it, and then a tiny thin pole and the slot that goes into the base. Wouldn't surprise me if these things kept breaking in the mould.
I'm glad I have about 4 of 'em from the old days. No Cheribum though. Those things kinda spook me out.
Kanluwen wrote: It's very interesting when you find out things like that as it makes so much more sense in regards to some things, like my poor defunct Inquisitor Vindicare Assassin...
What about your Vindicare?
The Inquisitor scale Vindicare Assassin never really made it into full production. It was tearing the mold apart every 30 or so casts.
H.B.M.C., if Inquisitorial Storm Troopers aren't coming back, do you have any ideas whether there will be something to 'replace' them? Like you, I've always liked the Storm Trooper/Kasrkin angle for an Inq. strike force, and I wonder if (read: hope) losing them means gaining something similar/different.
My biggest wish for this 'dex is that it will make more traditional Inquisition/GK lists viable in the current meta. I like Draigowing and Mordrak-punch well enough, but it would be nice to be able to run a more human-centric Inquisition list with a couple of GK hammer units and have it work on the table.
EDIT: Righto, so the discussion is over apparently. I'll limit myself instead to saying that anyone who genuinely thinks that art is sexualised or equivalent to male strippers is just being silly, since I can't rebut the nonsense in this thread point-by-point without getting a warning.
Kanluwen wrote: The Inquisitor scale Vindicare Assassin never really made it into full production. It was tearing the mold apart every 30 or so casts.
Oh, Inquisitor scale. I get'cha.
Xca|iber wrote: H.B.M.C., if Inquisitorial Storm Troopers aren't coming back, do you have any ideas whether there will be something to 'replace' them? Like you, I've always liked the Storm Trooper/Kasrkin angle for an Inq. strike force, and I wonder if (read: hope) losing them means gaining something similar/different.
No idea. My feeler into the depths of GW ain't talking (well he is, but he's being cryptic... but he's always like that!), so I'm as much in the dark as anyone else here.
Xca|iber wrote: My biggest wish for this 'dex is that it will make more traditional Inquisition/GK lists viable in the current meta. I like Draigowing and Mordrak-punch well enough, but it would be nice to be able to run a more human-centric Inquisition list with a couple of GK hammer units and have it work on the table.
Me too. Never had much interest in GKs or Sisters, so when their respective [Name] Hunter books came out I specifically made regular human based forces (hence my abundance of Kasrkin models). Combined with my sizable Guard army I could do (and did do!) great Inquisitorial led forces, wrote up tons of characters and eventually did a full backstory for the sector their in and we played linked Apoc games and so on. It was great fun. The Wardian Grey Knight Codex spat on that, set it on fire, spat on it again and then set the remains on fire again. I hate requiring a Special Character to field my pale facsimile of my army, and I really do hope that this Inquisitor Codex removes that issue.
And as I've said to others, I just started collecting armies that don't exist (Deathwatch, Adeptus Mechanicus). Can't invalidate that which does not have rules!
H.B.M.C. wrote: No idea. My feeler into the depths of GW ain't talking (well he is, but he's being cryptic... but he's always like that!), so I'm as much in the dark as anyone else here.
No, I'd say you at least get a birthday candle's worth of illumination. Some of use are truly in the dark, only learning what the surroundings look like through sound and touch (aka rumors from main sources and the occasional grapevine posting, like your comment about Stormtroopers).
Malika2 wrote: ... not as cool as stuff done by Adrian Smith, Karl Kopinski, John Blanche and others.
You do know that artwork from those guys is often in FFG books, right?
I know it is, but there is not also a lot of this new stuff. Not that I'm against new artwork, but the style/direction of the newer material doesn't really do it for me. I found the covers of the last few codici to be quite disappointing (Space Marines, Black Legion, SIsters of Battle), it just felt like generic artwork you see for most computer games. Not that inspiring really...
H.B.M.C. wrote: Honestly Haight I don't know what you're talking about.
"Up to GW's standard"... what would that be? Have you ever looked through a 40KRPG book? The artwork in those books is often amazing.
What do you mean what am i talking about, it's not a particularly hard concept. I'll break it down in bite sizes however.
The RPG art quality is good (note i never said otherwise..).
I don't think the posted pic is up to that quality.
Therefore that point of yours is moot.
I think the posted pic is not up to the quality that i would expect to shell out 50.00 USD for a 72 page book with a dust jacket consisting of 4 pages of rules, and a lot of fluff.
If an entire book contained art of that quality, it would greatly reduce the liklihood i would spend that much money.
One of the reasons i buy the supplements in hardcover - even for armies i don't play, like Eldar - is their quality, beauty, and general "coffee table quality".
If these books contained art consisting more or less of the quality like in the posted pic, it would reduce my liklihood of buying them to just about zero.
I'd google image the rules (all four pages!) of the armies i played, and merrily ignore the rest of them all.
It should be relatively easy for anyone to "know what i'm talking about". My points weren't exactly unclear.
And yes, i've seen the RPG books. They are gorgeous. There are precious few shots of inquisitors with Bieber hair because the artist was clearly too lazy to finalize drawing a face and expression.
No. People still think you need an e-reader. We should just add it to the title of each digital thread. 'You don't need a fething e-reader'
I'd say make it a sticky but then no one would read it.
For me, it has become the single most annoying preconception people have about GW, I won't list the others as they tend to come up in most other threads, and I'm sick of seeing them.
Eldercaveman wrote: For me, it has become the single most annoying preconception people have about GW, I won't list the others as they tend to come up in most other threads, and I'm sick of seeing them.
It also doesn't help that certain posters actively encourage this incorrect assumption...
Eldercaveman wrote: For me, it has become the single most annoying preconception people have about GW, I won't list the others as they tend to come up in most other threads, and I'm sick of seeing them.
It also doesn't help that certain posters actively encourage this incorrect assumption...
I'm not sure who you are alluding to. But I'm sure you are right. And you are probably being really obvious as well. I'm just very tired.
Eldercaveman wrote: For me, it has become the single most annoying preconception people have about GW, I won't list the others as they tend to come up in most other threads, and I'm sick of seeing them.
It also doesn't help that certain posters actively encourage this incorrect assumption...
Eldercaveman wrote: For me, it has become the single most annoying preconception people have about GW, I won't list the others as they tend to come up in most other threads, and I'm sick of seeing them.
It also doesn't help that certain posters actively encourage this incorrect assumption...
No doubt, GW had what, a single product that was (temporarily) iDevice only? Pretty much every release after the initial one has supported access through multiple platforms. Not to mention that Amazon advertises a free reader for digital products to put books on your PC. But nope, easier to believe GW is evil and makes you spend more money for a device specifically to read their digital releases.
To answer a bit more of your question, Codex: Inquisition is roughly the same size as Codex: Adepta Sororitas. It provides rules to play an Inquisition force as either an army in its own right or alongside other armies: No Grey Knights required (though they are handy to have around when the Daemons show up...)
- Sarah
The same size as Codex: Adepta Sororitas means quite a lot of room for new units ! Because currently, there is way way less Inquisitorial units available.
To answer a bit more of your question, Codex: Inquisition is roughly the same size as Codex: Adepta Sororitas. It provides rules to play an Inquisition force as either an army in its own right or alongside other armies: No Grey Knights required (though they are handy to have around when the Daemons show up...)
- Sarah
The same size as Codex: Adepta Sororitas means quite a lot of room for new units ! Because currently, there is way way less Inquisitorial units available.
There was a follow along post to that as well:
The codex is primarily designed to be used as an allied force, but there's nothing stopping you using it as your primary detachment.
You certainly won't need to include any Grey Knights in the army to have an Inquisitor lead your forces.
- Eddie
So it's made to be allies, but you can run it alone or as the primary detachment. This should be interesting.
The rules in this book allow you to add the agents of the Inquisition into any Imperial force (as well as fielding them, begrudgingly, alongside the armies some of the less belligerent alien races), or field them as an army in their own right.
The main focus is very definitely on the individual Inquisitors themselves, with every Inquisitor now having access to a bewildering array of options, wargear and armour, making them one of the most customisable characters in the galaxy (as it should be).
There are also plenty of ways to represent your Inquisitor’s alignment to a particular Ordo, from weapons, unique Inquisitorial relics and three Warlord Traits tables for Xenos, Hereticus and Malleus Inquisitors.
Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
Of course, Inquisitors rarely travel alone. Instead they bring with them experienced warriors and specialists, not to mention their pick of the best transports from across the Imperium.
This is great way to represent your Inquisitor’s own particular field of expertise. Will you have a radical Inquisitor leading ethereal squadrons of Daemonhosts, or an experienced alien hunter with a pack of Jokaero Weaponsmiths in tow? Of course, you’re welcome to mix the two if you like (but we can’t promise that your space-ape and possessed monstrosity will play well together).
You’ll be able to pre-order your codex this Saturday, both as an interactive edition for iBooks, and as an eBook edition for your phone, tablet, computer and eReader.
Join us next week, when we’re going to take a look at the next supplement for Codex: Space Marines – ‘Clan Raukaan’ of the Iron Hands.
I am genuinely excited by this, and anyone familiar with my usual stance in any GW related thread will know how rare this is!
I might even preorder it!
Bravo GW, I've always said I'm happy to applaud anything I feel is good as much as I condemn anything I feel is poor, so have a small round of applause from me!
This is really good news. I will definately be pre ordering this, since I have two squads of Stormtroopers lying around and I have always wanted some more Inquisition units, but Codex: GK stopped me from doing that.
azreal13 wrote: I am genuinely excited by this, and anyone familiar with my usual stance in any GW related thread will know how rare this is!
I might even preorder it!
Bravo GW, I've always said I'm happy to applaud anything I feel is good as much as I condemn anything I feel is poor, so have a small round of applause from me!
The end is NIGH!!!!
But seriously I'm glad that GW is doing something that can excite people who have a less than stellar view of them. On a personal note GW will be getting the money from me on release night. Pre-order is pointless since I use an e-reader. But this looks like it could be a good time.
My guess is henchmen and storm troopers for troops. Outside of that who knows Glad to hear I can bring an Inquisitor in my IG without using up an allies spot should I choose. This is going to get ugly
My guess is henchmen and storm troopers for troops. Outside of that who knows Glad to hear I can bring an Inquisitor in my IG without using up an allies spot should I choose. This is going to get ugly
Black Library wrote: Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
Sounds like Inquisitors will burn allies slots, where are you getting that they won't?
pretre wrote: Hmm, things will get really interesting if they really can lead your original detachment and bring a land raider. Sisters with an assault vehicle?
pretre wrote: Hmm, things will get really interesting if they really can lead your original detachment and bring a land raider. Sisters with an assault vehicle?
My thoughts exactly.
Forget that, guard will be able to fit divination in a primary detachment. Not to mention we will be able to have almost every imperial force represented on the table at one time. Inquisition, Admech, marines, navy and guard.
pretre wrote: Hmm, things will get really interesting if they really can lead your original detachment and bring a land raider. Sisters with an assault vehicle?
My thoughts exactly.
Will Sisters Units be able to get in it though? Even Battle Brothers can't ride in each other transports...
If we can though, well, finally(!) a delivery mechanism for the Repentia!
pretre wrote: Hmm, things will get really interesting if they really can lead your original detachment and bring a land raider. Sisters with an assault vehicle?
My thoughts exactly.
Will Sisters Units be able to get in it though? Even Battle Brothers can't ride in each other transports...
If we can though, well, finally(!) a delivery mechanism for the Repentia!
D
Well, if they are allies, no. If they allow them to be warlords in the primary detachment somehow yes. Although, we still have no idea how the attachment thing will work. The only thing we're holding onto is the weird way that Red Hunters are worded.
Here is a crazy thought; There is tons of artwork of inquisitorial Valkyries, so do you think it might be possible for the Inquisition to get Valkyries as dedicated transports or fast attacks?
Happygrunt wrote: Here is a crazy thought; There is tons of artwork of inquisitorial Valkyries, so do you think it might be possible for the Inquisition to get Valkyries as dedicated transports or fast attacks?
IF it happens so we might actually see how they will be changed for the rumoured guard codex as well.
Happygrunt wrote: Here is a crazy thought; There is tons of artwork of inquisitorial Valkyries, so do you think it might be possible for the Inquisition to get Valkyries as dedicated transports or fast attacks?
IF it happens so we might actually see how they will be changed for the rumoured guard codex as well.
Or more likely they'll get the same profile, which will be changed on release of the new guard dex.
pretre wrote: Hmm, things will get really interesting if they really can lead your original detachment and bring a land raider. Sisters with an assault vehicle?
My thoughts exactly.
Will Sisters Units be able to get in it though? Even Battle Brothers can't ride in each other transports...
If we can though, well, finally(!) a delivery mechanism for the Repentia!
D
Well, if they are allies, no. If they allow them to be warlords in the primary detachment somehow yes. Although, we still have no idea how the attachment thing will work. The only thing we're holding onto is the weird way that Red Hunters are worded.
It reads like you'll be able to take the INQ ally and make the ally be your warlord... (just in reading the blog)
The rules in this book allow you to add the agents of the Inquisition into any Imperial force (as well as fielding them, begrudgingly, alongside the armies some of the less belligerent alien races), or field them as an army in their own right.
The main focus is very definitely on the individual Inquisitors themselves, with every Inquisitor now having access to a bewildering array of options, wargear and armour, making them one of the most customisable characters in the galaxy (as it should be).
There are also plenty of ways to represent your Inquisitor’s alignment to a particular Ordo, from weapons, unique Inquisitorial relics and three Warlord Traits tables for Xenos, Hereticus and Malleus Inquisitors.
Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
Of course, Inquisitors rarely travel alone. Instead they bring with them experienced warriors and specialists, not to mention their pick of the best transports from across the Imperium.
This is great way to represent your Inquisitor’s own particular field of expertise. Will you have a radical Inquisitor leading ethereal squadrons of Daemonhosts, or an experienced alien hunter with a pack of Jokaero Weaponsmiths in tow? Of course, you’re welcome to mix the two if you like (but we can’t promise that your space-ape and possessed monstrosity will play well together).
You’ll be able to pre-order your codex this Saturday, both as an interactive edition for iBooks, and as an eBook edition for your phone, tablet, computer and eReader.
Join us next week, when we’re going to take a look at the next supplement for Codex: Space Marines – ‘Clan Raukaan’ of the Iron Hands.
Thanks for reading!
Thanks for the find - sounds pretty much exactly what i was hoping for, so color me excited !
pretre wrote: Well, if they are allies, no. If they allow them to be warlords in the primary detachment somehow yes. Although, we still have no idea how the attachment thing will work. The only thing we're holding onto is the weird way that Red Hunters are worded.
It reads like you'll be able to take the INQ ally and make the ally be your warlord... (just in reading the blog)
Right, but if that was the whole of it then the Red Hunters thing wouldn't work with SOB. Since you can't have two different allies.
The only way that the RH thing works is if you are allowed to take inquisitors as part of your primary AS detachment.
pretre wrote: Well, if they are allies, no. If they allow them to be warlords in the primary detachment somehow yes. Although, we still have no idea how the attachment thing will work. The only thing we're holding onto is the weird way that Red Hunters are worded.
It reads like you'll be able to take the INQ ally and make the ally be your warlord... (just in reading the blog)
Right, but if that was the whole of it then the Red Hunters thing wouldn't work with SOB. Since you can't have two different allies.
The only way that the RH thing works is if you are allowed to take inquisitors as part of your primary AS detachment.
or if FW plans on making changes I asked them (digital editions)directly, i'll let you know if they answer me
As soon as I can get everything for the preview together I'll be posting it all on Talk Wargaming like I did C: AS. No point in only the iPad users being the only ones to see the stuff afterall.
pretre wrote: Well, if they are allies, no. If they allow them to be warlords in the primary detachment somehow yes. Although, we still have no idea how the attachment thing will work. The only thing we're holding onto is the weird way that Red Hunters are worded.
It reads like you'll be able to take the INQ ally and make the ally be your warlord... (just in reading the blog)
Right, but if that was the whole of it then the Red Hunters thing wouldn't work with SOB. Since you can't have two different allies.
The only way that the RH thing works is if you are allowed to take inquisitors as part of your primary AS detachment.
or if FW plans on making changes I asked them (digital editions)directly, i'll let you know if they answer me
The Question to Forgeworld I had a question concerning the newly released PDF for "SPACE MARINE CHAPTER TACTICS FOR SIXTH EDITION WARHAMMER 40,000".
For the section that addresses the Red Hunters on the that states the following:
"By this Seal: When using the Allies Matrix, all models in
the Red Hunters detachment count units from Codex: Grey
Knights and Sisters of Battle as Battle Brothers so long as an
Inquisitor is also present in the allied detachment."
Sisters of Battle (now known as Adeptus Sororitas as in the new codex release) no longer have an inquisitor in their codex and haven't since they were part of the Witch Hunters codex. Can you please clarify how a sisters of battle/adeptus sororitas is suppose to be able to take the Red Hunters as allies if they cannot take an inquisitor in their army list?
The Response via Forge World Thank you for your email. The Chapter Tactics update is fully up to date with the current codex's and is in fact future proofed. All we can say is that it is correct and the Red Hunters Chapter Tactics will make sense at a later date.
pretre wrote: Well, if they are allies, no. If they allow them to be warlords in the primary detachment somehow yes. Although, we still have no idea how the attachment thing will work. The only thing we're holding onto is the weird way that Red Hunters are worded.
It reads like you'll be able to take the INQ ally and make the ally be your warlord... (just in reading the blog)
Right, but if that was the whole of it then the Red Hunters thing wouldn't work with SOB. Since you can't have two different allies.
The only way that the RH thing works is if you are allowed to take inquisitors as part of your primary AS detachment.
or if FW plans on making changes I asked them (digital editions)directly, i'll let you know if they answer me
The Question to Forgeworld I had a question concerning the newly released PDF for "SPACE MARINE CHAPTER TACTICS FOR SIXTH EDITION WARHAMMER 40,000".
For the section that addresses the Red Hunters on the that states the following:
"By this Seal: When using the Allies Matrix, all models in
the Red Hunters detachment count units from Codex: Grey
Knights and Sisters of Battle as Battle Brothers so long as an
Inquisitor is also present in the allied detachment."
Sisters of Battle (now known as Adeptus Sororitas as in the new codex release) no longer have an inquisitor in their codex and haven't since they were part of the Witch Hunters codex. Can you please clarify how a sisters of battle/adeptus sororitas is suppose to be able to take the Red Hunters as allies if they cannot take an inquisitor in their army list?
The Response via Forge World Thank you for your email. The Chapter Tactics update is fully up to date with the current codex's and is in fact future proofed. All we can say is that it is correct and the Red Hunters Chapter Tactics will make sense at a later date.
Doesn't say how it works... I asked them directly if we would be able to put INQhq in a slot on our normal army. or if they were able to be warlords from the aly slot... as there could be several ways to do things...
The Response via Forge World Thank you for your email. The Chapter Tactics update is fully up to date with the current codex's and is in fact future proofed. All we can say is that it is correct and the Red Hunters Chapter Tactics will make sense at a later date.
Doesn't say how it works... I asked them directly if we would be able to put INQhq in a slot on our normal army. or if they were able to be warlords from the aly slot... as there could be several ways to do things...
Unless they give you the ability to take TWO allied detachments, there is absolutely no way to have Inquisitor army, Battle Sisters army, and a Red Hunters army together all at the same time, thus the Red Hunters chapter tactics that lets Red Hunter Space Marines ally with Sisters of Battle if the Sisters are led by an inquisitor would make no sense if Inquisitors could only be a separate detachment, warlord of the primary or not. Therefore, the likely rule is that Inquisitors are allowed to be crammed into any Imperial army as additional units instead of an entire separate detachment.
Guys, what's the deal with those priests? Do they always seem to carry a hammer? Is that picture from the black library site how they are supposed to look? Someone mentioned they are from the Sisters (an army I have never seen). How do they function in that army?
Super Newb wrote: Guys, what's the deal with those priests? Do they always seem to carry a hammer? Is that picture from the black library site how they are supposed to look? Someone mentioned they are from the Sisters (an army I have never seen). How do they function in that army?
Priests carry a variety of weapons. Hammers are just one of them. They generally come stock with Chainsword/Pistol in most armies.
Sisters Priests use hammers right now for the delicious synergy with Smash.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I have all of that, but carrying around a codex in my phone is a bit annoying.
Okay, so print it out from your computer or send it to Kinkos/Office Max/etc.
easysauce wrote: BL site outright says, you get to inlcude inquisitors wihtout useing allies slot,
the rule will 99.9% be something like "any IOM army, or these select xenos, may feild an inquisitor in stead of their normal hq"
with maybe a few stipulations like, you must also bring a henchmen squad, or only certain inquisitors for certain xenos.
No, it doesn't. Show me where it outright says that. It isn't right here:
The rules in this book allow you to add the agents of the Inquisition into any Imperial force (as well as fielding them, begrudgingly, alongside the armies some of the less belligerent alien races), or field them as an army in their own right.
Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
we also get eisenhorn (SP?) back as a special char!
we also get eisenhorn (SP?) back as a special char!
I'm stupid levels of excited to see Eisenhorn. Here's hoping he'll have two profiles, like that one vamp from WHFB, to represent his slow fall from puritan to radical.
to petre above... citation needed?
be a less snarky/condescending, and add 1+1
or did you not READ THE FULL PAGE PREVIEW OF EISENHORN ON BLACK LIBRARY????
this is going to be a "full codex" according to BL, it will have special chars, hq, troops, elite, fa, heavy just like any other, eishen horn WILL be one of those special chars...
including some old favourites who might be familiar to fans of Black Library books…)
and it links to eishenhorns unit description pic.... so that might be slight clue as to him being included....
Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)
Hate to break it to you but it's a pretty easy rule to write to make an allied commander your warlord. Just as easy as making him part of the detachment. You can't quote current rules as an example when no matter what the new rule will break the current rules.
Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)
Or they give you a rule that says 'You may choose an Inquisitor as your warlord even if they are in an allied detachment.'
Argh, day/month/year date format in title so confusing . That said, I completely understand that this is an international forum, and the OP is from the UK, so it's a nice problem to have
So are there rules for Eisenhorn, or is this just fluff?
Because if you can field Eisenhorn, that would force a pretty quick push of these guys to the top of my to-do list of 40k, whenever I can get back into that.
Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)
Or they give you a rule that says 'You may choose an Inquisitor as your warlord even if they are in an allied detachment.'
Re: Eisenhorn, you were correct.
again, except for the red hunters FAQ,
how can I ally SOB with red hunters, AND ally in an inquisitor to lead the SOB so they can BB ally with red hunters in first place?
there 100% will be a rule to have inquisitors leading your army, it will be a sub in rule, not an ally one, so that the FAW re redhunters+SOB makes sense.
it will read like "IOM armies may take x instead of y to lead their army" possibly with conditions like "must take a unit of henchmen" or "no ordos xenos when leading xenos armies" but it will not be a 3rd ally, it will be a sub in type rule.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Wouldnt it be cool if an inquisitorial Vendetta/Valkyrie was part of this?
It's plausible. We already know the Land Raider is in, and the Chimera is likely too. They did mention that they get 'their pick of the best transports from across the Imperium'.
Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).
so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)
Or, they just let the ally be the warlord (easy as putting "Allied INQ can be your warlord" in the INQ codex) they could also may an exeption as to making them a ally on top of a second ally...
They could do a lot of things.. Codex is there to break the rules of the rulebook. (and give stats)
Who would be the most likely allies for Eisenhorn? Because, fluff-wise I guess it would be Guard but this would be a great excuse to roll Sisters or GK.
I guess it doesn't matter, since Eisenhorn will ally with whoever he likes if it works out for him. This is how he do.
Super Newb wrote: Guys, what's the deal with those priests? Do they always seem to carry a hammer? Is that picture from the black library site how they are supposed to look? Someone mentioned they are from the Sisters (an army I have never seen). How do they function in that army?
Priests carry a variety of weapons. Hammers are just one of them. They generally come stock with Chainsword/Pistol in most armies.
Oh I see. So those priests on the gw site are all Ministorum Priests then huh... not a fan of those models that's for sure...
I wonder if the rules will be different from the current priests. What are the rules, generally, for the current priests anyway? Reroll to hit?
how can I ally SOB with red hunters, AND ally in an inquisitor to lead the SOB so they can BB ally with red hunters in first place?
there 100% will be a rule to have inquisitors leading your army, it will be a sub in rule, not an ally one, so that the FAW re redhunters+SOB makes sense.
or they could go crazy and just make a sisters squad a troop choice for them (or for a spacific ordos...) nothing is 100% until it's there
dude... GW DID say it.. read the red hunters FAQ....
SOB can be BB with red hunters if they are led by an inquistitor,
they are not going to be 3 allied armies, they are going to be 2 allied armies, you cannot have 3 allies, with one ally being warlord for another, not to mention the force org chart problems with having 3 allies...
the obvious 99.99999% solution is simply stating "army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"
as oposed to totally rewriting allies for one codex...
it will be that way, because I know GW, and because that is what they have said on the BL site + FWfaq's if you know how to read them in context of one another
So, it's seeming like this is more of a fully-fledged army than first thought. I think it's interesting that GW has added another one to the roster, wasn't expec- anticipating that. I think that pretre's prediction of them getting their own section in the store will be accurate.
Also, I really hope that the FW thing holds up, SoB could do some cool stuff with SM Battle Brothers. But it's starting to seem a bit questionable at this point. Though FW did seem very confident of the rule being correct in their email response, so hopefully it pans out.
easysauce wrote: dude... GW DID say it.. read the red hunters FAQ....
SOB can be BB with red hunters if they are led by an inquistitor,
they are not going to be 3 allied armies, they are going to be 2 allied armies, you cannot have 3 allies, with one ally being warlord for another, not to mention the force org chart problems with having 3 allies...
the obvious 99.99999% solution is simply stating "army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"
as oposed to totally rewriting allies for one codex...
it will be that way, because I know GW, and because that is what they have said on the BL site + FWfaq's if you know how to read them in context of one another
No, a FWfaq produced prior to the publication of the new codex said it. I think that's probably how it is going to work but to say that it is obvious and 100% is ridiculous.
Ouze wrote: Who would be the most likely allies for Eisenhorn? Because, fluff-wise I guess it would be Guard but this would be a great excuse to roll Sisters or GK.
I'm not sure that the SoB or GK would really approve of his pet Daemon.
I would say that Guard are a better fit, yeah. More easilym cowed by his authority and less uptight than the SoB or GK.
easysauce wrote: dude... GW DID say it.. read the red hunters FAQ....
SOB can be BB with red hunters if they are led by an inquistitor,
they are not going to be 3 allied armies, they are going to be 2 allied armies, you cannot have 3 allies, with one ally being warlord for another, not to mention the force org chart problems with having 3 allies...
the obvious 99.99999% solution is simply stating "army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"
as oposed to totally rewriting allies for one codex...
it will be that way, because I know GW, and because that is what they have said on the BL site + FWfaq's if you know how to read them in context of one another
I read the FAQ, i'm not saying it won't happen, i'm saying it's not 100%or even 99%, because they COULD do several things.. because I too know GW, and the obvious isn't usually the correct
Super Newb wrote: Guys, what's the deal with those priests? Do they always seem to carry a hammer? Is that picture from the black library site how they are supposed to look? Someone mentioned they are from the Sisters (an army I have never seen). How do they function in that army?
Priests carry a variety of weapons. Hammers are just one of them. They generally come stock with Chainsword/Pistol in most armies.
Oh I see. So those priests on the gw site are all Ministorum Priests then huh... not a fan of those models that's for sure...
I wonder if the rules will be different from the current priests. What are the rules, generally, for the current priests anyway? Reroll to hit?
This is a good replacement(From the Alter of war fantasy)
Spoiler:
Infact a bit of the Empire stuff can be good for inquisitors
they could staple two unicorn halfs together and tell us that the new codex too, but thats not how it will turn out.
I stand by my statement, and find it funny that now you say im prbably right, but you just take issue with how sure I am, as opposed to "citation required" type foolishness.
it is the way they will do it, because its the onlyway they can do it..
"army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"
is pretty open ended, there are a lot of ways GW could enact that "rule" I am simply stating how it will work, not the vehicle it uses to get there.
I do know that allies will not be the vehicle that puts an inquisitor HQ in almost every army, it will be a rule along the lines of the one I have posted.
easysauce wrote: I stand by my statement, and find it funny that now you say im prbably right, but you just take issue with how sure I am, as opposed to "citation required" type foolishness.
It isn't your statement. It is the statement that I and everyone else has been saying since page 1 of this thread and before. That being said, none of us can prove that that is how it is going to work and no one has said that that is how it is going to work.
Also, The Citation Needed was for Eisenhorn since he isn't in the BL blog page that I saw, but in the iBooks preview or whatever. I said you were correct on that after I was corrected.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I really hope inquisitore get something to shut down all those psychic buffs in the game. If anyne can get some stop psykers, it is them
easysauce wrote: they could staple two unicorn halfs together and tell us that the new codex too, but thats not how it will turn out.
I stand by my statement, and find it funny that now you say im prbably right, but you just take issue with how sure I am, as opposed to "citation required" type foolishness.
it is the way they will do it, because its the onlyway they can do it..
"army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"
is pretty open ended, there are a lot of ways GW could enact that "rule" I am simply stating how it will work, not the vehicle it uses to get there.
I do know that allies will not be the vehicle that puts an inquisitor HQ in almost every army, it will be a rule along the lines of the one I have posted.
where did i say you are probably right? because I said you may not be wrong? I"m saying we don't know, and I asked Digital Editions for clarifacation so that we might actualy KNOW, not speculate because FW said one thing...
what wargear are you guys looking forward too?
personally I think all the xenos tech, and relic stuff like vortex grenades, the emperors tarot, null rods will be fun to play with.
they do seem to be diggin up lots of older inq stuff to put in here it seems.
definetly a full dex, thats been true for a while, so I think people are going to be quite suprised at how much is in it. should be on par with sisters for codex selection.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I really hope inquisitore get something to shut down all those psychic buffs in the game. If anyne can get some stop psykers, it is them
I fully expect null rods to be in this dex,
emperors tarot was rumoured to be back in too (though likely as warlord trait not wargear)
vortex grenades,
lots of xenos tech stuff along the lines of what valeria has,
Ouze wrote: Who would be the most likely allies for Eisenhorn? Because, fluff-wise I guess it would be Guard but this would be a great excuse to roll Sisters or GK.
I'm not sure that the SoB or GK would really approve of his pet Daemon.
I would say that Guard are a better fit, yeah. More easilym cowed by his authority and less uptight than the SoB or GK.
Yeah, Sisters are probably out - but GK have their own Daemonhosts, don't they? I don't have the book but vaguely remember butthurt about that. I could be mistaken.
azreal13 wrote: I am genuinely excited by this, and anyone familiar with my usual stance in any GW related thread will know how rare this is!
I have to agree, although:
... squadrons of Daemonhosts...
As long as I can use a cool model to represent a nails Inquisitor, run some of those Eisenkerns as troops and bling the feth out of a land Raider or Valkyrie, I'm happy.
I'll overlook any slightly...less good (or unbalanced) options for now.
I'm really interested in this book primarily for the Stormtroopers, I really want there to be ST's as troops, and I'd really like for them to be re-imagined. The current IG stormtroopers are naff for anything other than min/max suicide DS melta squads on any sort of consistent basis, I'd really love to see an actual *stormtrooper*-esque unit in the classic sense as an IG equivalent to something like Sternguard where they can shoot and fight above notably above their "normal" counterparts but aren't so specialized that you send them only against one type of target.
We ain't gonna get "Inquisitorial Storm Troopers". I have this on very good authority.
I don't think we'll get any new models from this, but I am hoping that we get the full spread of transport options - Rhino, Land Raider, Chimera, Valkyrie, Stretch Hummer, Tyranid Malefactor, etc. - just to show that Inquisitors can get whatever car they want!
And I think it's pretty clear that you'll be able to take an Inquisitor in your primary detechment, otherwise the Red Hunter FAQ doesn't make sense. It's an Occam's Razor situation; we don't know for certain, but of the two options (cannot take in primary and can take in primary) it is the most likely/simplest choice.
For clarity, are we saying "there will be no such thing as Inquisitorial Stormtroopers" in that they won't have the unit ported over from the IG codex, or are we saying "there will be no such thing as Inquisitorial Stormtroopers" in the sense that they won't exist in the Codex either functionally or nominally?
I'm saying that the book might include Storm Troopers, but the concept of "Inquisitorial" Storm Troopers (ie. a specific standing force of Strom Troopers that are part of/work for the Inquisition) won't be there.
. Boob window on an official artwork, for an Inquisitor 
?
.
