Well boys, as per the list of which books are valid when, the Inquisiton book is now out-of-date. The Inqusition list as it stands now was printed in Warzone Octarius 1, which is now out of date, meaning that outside of Solomon Lok and Hector rex (which are also broken because of this due to missing keywords and a psychic discipline) Inqusition does not exist.

So, ideas of what they're going to do next? Just reprint the rules again? Give them an Overhaul? or just squat inquisition for good. The latter would be an odd choice, all things considered, but anythings on the table at this point.

Given what GW has brought forth in the past few years?

Who knows anymore.

Plastic Aspects! Squats! Specialist Games! More than desultory Xenos releases!

They have released three plastic Inquisitors over the last few years, including an Anniversary model last year. I doubt they are being axed.

I don't think GW has a great idea of what to do with them though, which is bizarre when there are a multitude of amazing Inq28 threads out there for inspiration.

The assassins rules expire in June, there's a slew of imperial hangers on out in rogue traders, arms men, arbites coming up etc. It would be easy to see a imperial agents book sometime soon.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Given what GW has brought forth in the past few years?

Who knows anymore.

Plastic Aspects! Squats! Specialist Games! More than desultory Xenos releases!

My dream would allow us to take any of the three Orders Militant as our troops/elites options and mix everyone else into the army.

My only realistic hope is that they give us Scions as troops and call it a day.

I'm not very hopeful however, as I've not even heard a whisper of an Inqusition revival.

 Haighus wrote:
They have released three plastic Inquisitors over the last few years, including an Anniversary model last year. I doubt they are being axed.

I don't think GW has a great idea of what to do with them though, which is bizarre when there are a multitude of amazing Inq28 threads out there for inspiration.

Indeed. I think they suffer from the fact that, as a faction, they only really have had Stormtroopers as any sort of dedicated unit you could make an army out of, along with GK and Sisters, both of which got spun off into their armies. When they divorced sisters and GK away, and then replaced Stormtroopers with Scions which are a decidedly Guard thing, the Inqusition was left as basically the 40k Equivalent of a Rump state.

Dudeface wrote:
The assassins rules expire in June, there's a slew of imperial hangers on out in rogue traders, arms men, arbites coming up etc. It would be easy to see a imperial agents book sometime soon.

That's the best I can hope for honestly. Maybe even make it a half-army at the very least.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Haighus wrote:
They have released three plastic Inquisitors over the last few years, including an Anniversary model last year. I doubt they are being axed.

I don't think GW has a great idea of what to do with them though, which is bizarre when there are a multitude of amazing Inq28 threads out there for inspiration.

Indeed. I think they suffer from the fact that, as a faction, they only really have had Stormtroopers as any sort of dedicated unit you could make an army out of, along with GK and Sisters, both of which got spun off into their armies. When they divorced sisters and GK away, and then replaced Stormtroopers with Scions which are a decidedly Guard thing, the Inqusition was left as basically the 40k Equivalent of a Rump state.

Yeah, which is weird when they have also added allies rules that make it easier than ever to stick extras into an army in the time Inquisition has languished. They also released Deathwatch properly to round out the Chambers Militant.

A new, proper Inquisitorial Stormtrooper kit would be really cool. An upgrade sprue for Scions could be ok too.

Henchmen need a kit with lots of weird little options.

Arbites are out soon. Once they are I wouldn't be surprised to see updated rules for imperial agents in an upcoming white dwarf

I seem to remember they feature in the new Boarding actions mustering armies rules; there must be a release coming up, or rules in the first narrative book. Actually good shout on it being in WD xttz.

I’d rather see Inquisition as a special detachment for other armies.

Let the Inquisitor have their odds and ends troops, but not enough to be a full army in itself.

Hell, make it a single HQ slot with a “points of your army” percentage cap. Arguments sake, 25%. From that you pay for your Inquisitor and whatever odd bods you want from their Codex, taking up a single HQ slot, and not preventing you gaining your usual perks for being Cadian, Blood Angels etc.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d rather see Inquisition as a special detachment for other armies.

Let the Inquisitor have their odds and ends troops, but not enough to be a full army in itself.

Hell, make it a single HQ slot with a “points of your army” percentage cap. Arguments sake, 25%. From that you pay for your Inquisitor and whatever odd bods you want from their Codex, taking up a single HQ slot, and not preventing you gaining your usual perks for being Cadian, Blood Angels etc.

I mean, that's functionally what the Imperial Agent slot was, they just never bothered to make Inqusitors worth it unless you needed some Psychic powers. The thing that always bugs me is that the Inquisition used to be a proper army and instead has been left to rot. I want them to be an army again, even if it's like Daemons and it can only be 25% of a Imperial force.

When GW publishes something that says a book is out of date, they do it so that people don't whine about "needing" a book that is out of print.

I'm unaware of any book which was published during 9th that no longer works with 9th. In fact, I still use 8th ed stuff (particularly BSF) that was once deemed to be compatible with 9th; doing so doesn't cause any problems of incompatibility.

That being said: there are now enough Imperial Agent unit (Voidsmen, Navy, Arbites coming soon) that an Imperial Agents book is not beyond the realm of possibility. Nothing of the kind has been rumoured, so it's a very, very long shot. But if they keep the KT Agent units into 10th, we might see it there.

A WD Agents Dex, or including an updated Agents Dex in one of the three AoO Campaign books is also possible for 9th, and I'd prefer that to nothing, because there's a chance to get Crusade rules for Agents that aren't Rogue Traders.

Mission accomplished then, it would seem.

From everything I know, the current powers that be in the 40k design studio are of the opinion that the Inquisition should not really be part of the battlefields of the 41st Millennium.

This is similar to how the previous head of their IP was adamantly against Genestealer Cults being part of 40k, and as soon as he went, guess what showed up again?

I don't think they'll stay gone, but I also think the glory days of Daemonhunters/Witch Hunters are long behind us.

To bring back the Hunter era glory days, they could make a "Chamber Militant" rule that allowed an Inquisitor who joins a detachment of their Chamber to bring any number of other Imperial Agents into the detachment, provided they occupy appropriate FOC slots. Chamber forces would keep their purity rules in such a detachment, and would also benefit from the Quarry rule of their Inquisitor. It wouldn't give us back ALL of our cool hench... But if you included BSF characters then it starts to look better. Knosso Prond should become a generic DCA Executioner and Gotfret de Montbard a generic Crusader Exemplar, and both should be Agents- which also allow one of them to join an SoB Battle Conclave.

Unaligned units might factor into rounding out the equation, but that needs BSF reprints too. I could see the radical Kiria Draxus running with a Zoat or Man of Iron... Or Amallyn, though I'm not sure she had Unaligned.

A minor tweak to Authority of the Inquisition that allowed Inquisition units to not only ride Imperial transports but also to add them to Inquisition detachments would also be a HUGE fix for Inquisition.

This is the great tragedy of Inquisition- so much could be improved with so little effort. This is true of Imperial Agents as a whole, but the Chamber Militant fix makes it especially true of the Inquisition.

PenitentJake wrote:
It wouldn't give us back ALL of our cool hench... But if you included BSF characters then it starts to look better. Knosso Prond should become a generic DCA Executioner and Gotfret de Montbard a generic Crusader Exemplar, and both should be Agents- which also allow one of them to join an SoB Battle Conclave.

Unfortunately such a thing would run headlong into "No Model/No Rule", so we'd have "A Henchmen unit may include 0-1 Death Cult Assassin and 0-1 Crusader and 0-1 Gun Servitor w/Grav-Cannon", because they only make one model of each, and the thought of having more than one is, of course, just ludicrous.

PenitentJake wrote:
This is the great tragedy of Inquisition- so much could be improved with so little effort. This is true of Imperial Agents as a whole, but the Chamber Militant fix makes it especially true of the Inquisition.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

GW has no will for the Inquisition though, so expect a Legends PDF or some WD article at best. Hell, they could shove 'em into one of the Arks of Omen book sans points values (just PL) and keep their "No matched play rules!" pledge technically true.

Yes, they are being squatted! Brought back with a whole new range after a long time being ignored!

I kid. But yeah, there's a lot of 'Agents of the Imperium' stuff that's just in an awkward sort of place right now. Assassins, Inquisitors, Navy Breachers, soon Arbites, and we still don't have plastic models for things like Preachers, Death Cult Assassins, or Crusaders in any kit outside of some specific board game stuff.

We'll see what happens!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:
It wouldn't give us back ALL of our cool hench... But if you included BSF characters then it starts to look better. Knosso Prond should become a generic DCA Executioner and Gotfret de Montbard a generic Crusader Exemplar, and both should be Agents- which also allow one of them to join an SoB Battle Conclave.

Unfortunately such a thing would run headlong into "No Model/No Rule", so we'd have "A Henchmen unit may include 0-1 Death Cult Assassin and 0-1 Crusader and 0-1 Gun Servitor w/Grav-Cannon", because they only make one model of each, and the thought of having more than one is, of course, just ludicrous.

PenitentJake wrote:
This is the great tragedy of Inquisition- so much could be improved with so little effort. This is true of Imperial Agents as a whole, but the Chamber Militant fix makes it especially true of the Inquisition.

Where there's a will, there's a way.

GW has no will for the Inquisition though, so expect a Legends PDF or some WD article at best. Hell, they could shove 'em into one of the Arks of Omen book sans points values (just PL) and keep their "No matched play rules!" pledge technically true.

I think this is really hitting the nail on this one, GW would rather not sell Inq stuff now. So they can sell it later with a big flashy release and a bunch of uniqueness to get more sales then.

They do it with other things as well, they are happy to sacrifice the game at present.
People will buy in anyway, and often a unhappy player is left with the choice of playing nothing. Or playing something else in 40k.

I'd love to model an Inquisition detachment; but reckon it should be unique. So for me it's probably going to be homebrew or 'count-as' anyway. Srill be nice to have a base to work from.

Wait, Assassins are squatted in June? That is precious. Considering the big ticket item for signing up on their stupid digital platform was an Assassin, that would be too much Irony. Remember that model that we gave you for over 100USD? You can't legally use it now.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Wait, Assassins are squatted in June? That is precious. Considering the big ticket item for signing up on their stupid digital platform was an Assassin, that would be too much Irony. Remember that model that we gave you for over 100USD? You can't legally use it now.

Can't legally use it at an organised event who follows the GW document*

Also, the model didn't cost $100. Access to the service may have done, but that's not the same as model cost. We also don't know what GW are going to do in June. There may well be a full Agents of the Imperium army list on the way before then.

Slipspace wrote:
Also, the model didn't cost $100. Access to the service may have done, but that's not the same as model cost. We also don't know what GW are going to do in June. There may well be a full Agents of the Imperium army list on the way before then.

Or some sort of yearly compendium or whatever that collects rules for the assorted boardgame, killteam and so on models.

Can they just white dwarf it?

Slipspace wrote:
Also, the model didn't cost $100. Access to the service may have done, but that's not the same as model cost.

It is to the customer. Spend $x, get Y.
The question is PoV. Did you buy that streaming sub/app & get a bonus model? Did you buy that model & get a bonus year of streaming content/app? Do you view it as a 50/50 split?
Doesn't matter, in the end you still spent $x.

ccs wrote:

Slipspace wrote:
Also, the model didn't cost $100. Access to the service may have done, but that's not the same as model cost.

It is to the customer. Spend $x, get Y.
The question is PoV. Did you buy that streaming sub/app & get a bonus model? Did you buy that model & get a bonus year of streaming content/app? Do you view it as a 50/50 split?
Doesn't matter, in the end you still spent $x.

But got more then just the model for they money spent. If all they wanted out of the subscription was the mini then yes, they paid the full price for it. But a W+ subscription is a lot more then just the mini.

Like any GW bundle deal, you need to take a look at the whole package, figure out what you care about in it vs. the price, and evaluate the relevant personal discount.

But to say that in the end spend x for y is misleading. You are spending x to get (a + b + c). You can’t just ignore the rest of the package deal.

I still want to convert two Inquisitors with souped up power swords- Inquisitor Occam and Inquisitor Hanlon- the swords would be their respective "Razors."

PenitentJake wrote:
I still want to convert two Inquisitors with souped up power swords- Inquisitor Occam and Inquisitor Hanlon- the swords would be their respective "Razors."

They need a henchman with a teapot.

Just attach roll them into the DW, the Sisters, or the GK, depending on Ordo. Xenos, Hereticus, Diabolis. Done.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just attach roll them into the DW, the Sisters, or the GK, depending on Ordo. Xenos, Hereticus, Diabolis. Done.

Thiscould work, but it isn't the optimal solution. A good Agents book is a far better idea, because you'd end up duplicating entries- Navy Breachers, Rogue Traders and even Arbites have the capacity to work for all three Ordos, so they'd get datacards in all three dexes?

Not only that, while the Inquisition rarely takes to the field en masse, it is still nice to have the option of pure Inquisition Detachments. It's possible to write the rules in such a way that this is possible even if they did move them into their chamber dexes, but it is certainly less likely.

Finally, the quality of Crusade content for Agents would be far higher in a standalone Agent dex; in a chamber book, the Agents might not get any bespoke Crusade content, when really, theirs should be the most developed content of all. Alternate game sizes are important to keep in mind for the Inquisition- and for me, that goes hand in hand with game size/ escalation.

Which brings me to another piece of the "Fixing Inquisition" puzzle: Kill Team.

Releasing a KT box for each Ordo is almost too much to aske for, but even a single box could do the trick if it contained enough options. The specialist gear in KT usually makes its way to 40k through one channel or another.

They could even do a whole WH Quest game based on the Inquisition- Blackstone fortress models really left a mark on 40k, and I feel that Inquisition would do the same.

 PaddyMick wrote:
I seem to remember they feature in the new Boarding actions mustering armies rules; there must be a release coming up, or rules in the first narrative book. Actually good shout on it being in WD xttz.

Yeah, they already revealed Adeptus Arbites are getting new models which will be inquisition. Maybe a new codex too?

I don't think they're dead. GW is just bad at managing all their rules. They probably didn't even realise they have no valid rules now.

Jarms48 wrote:
I don't think they're dead. GW is just bad at managing all their rules. They probably didn't even realise they have no valid rules now.

This is probably sadder than neglect honestly, there rules so mismanaged that they really don’t have a clue what’s going on.

They probably think there isn’t a rush since, only a small fraction of players run inquisition

Dudeface wrote:
The assassins rules expire in June, there's a slew of imperial hangers on out in rogue traders, arms men, arbites coming up etc. It would be easy to see a imperial agents book sometime soon.

Codex Imperial Agents is a traditional way to end an edition after all.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
The assassins rules expire in June, there's a slew of imperial hangers on out in rogue traders, arms men, arbites coming up etc. It would be easy to see a imperial agents book sometime soon.

Codex Imperial Agents is a traditional way to end an edition after all.

Which is a shame, as I love the concept.

The Imperium has so many little scraps of factions that are cool and flavorful, but really shouldn’t be a full fledged army with a codex. Having them collected into a codex is a good way to keep the rules available, but not a silly stand alone book for 1-3 units. WD is not a bad option, but you run into issues with access when it’s out of print. Ideally the rules would be free PDFs, but GW is too hooked on the sale of books to step away from that model.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just attach roll them into the DW, the Sisters, or the GK, depending on Ordo. Xenos, Hereticus, Diabolis. Done.

Which is where we were in 3rd edition. Everything comes back eventually.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just attach roll them into the DW, the Sisters, or the GK, depending on Ordo. Xenos, Hereticus, Diabolis. Done.

Which is where we were in 3rd edition. Everything comes back eventually.

Not sure why Fezzik is inventing an Ordo there, though - Malleus is the Ordo that deals with Chaos, not Diabolis.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Just attach roll them into the DW, the Sisters, or the GK, depending on Ordo. Xenos, Hereticus, Diabolis. Done.

Which is where we were in 3rd edition. Everything comes back eventually.

Not sure why Fezzik is inventing an Ordo there, though - Malleus is the Ordo that deals with Chaos, not Diabolis.

Sorry, forgot the name and gave it a try.

It was a good try. I mean, Hereticis for Heretics, Xenos for Aliens and Malleus... for Hammers?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was a good try. I mean, Hereticis for Heretics, Xenos for Aliens and Malleus... for Hammers?

AHEM!

The existence of Daemons is a closely guarded secret and the existence of Daemon Hunters even more so. So the Holy Ordo conceals its very existence with its name. Even among the few who know of the existence of the Ordo Malleus they only know of it as an Ordo that polices the Inquisition itself from within. It's true role is a secret hidden within an enigma.

And yes. This is canon.

Given how popular Inquisition is amongst fans of the background, it is truly baffling that they continue to undersupport it.

I swear I thought I just listened to a Cain Audiobook where one of the rogue Inquisitors that has duped the Sisters on the planet being attacked by Nids, defined himself as a member of that Ordo. That's where I was thinking when I said it. I've completely forgotten the name of the Inquisitor, but he's evil, and in a sidebar conversation with either Amberly or Jurgen, Malleus pops up. I have to go back and listen now. Again, I admit fault, but I want to actually verify what I heard.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was a good try. I mean, Hereticis for Heretics, Xenos for Aliens and Malleus... for Hammers?

Hey, when you're a hammer...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was a good try. I mean, Hereticis for Heretics, Xenos for Aliens and Malleus... for Hammers?

Sorry I can resist.

Named after the historical book Malleus Maleifacrum, or Hammer of Witches. Well in the public domain these days, as is Matthew Hopkins’ literary drivel. Both worth a read if you fancy laughing at it ignorance.

One can only hope they get squatted.

Revised and released as a whole new invigorated line.

But maybe not wait 25 years this time...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It was a good try. I mean, Hereticis for Heretics, Xenos for Aliens and Malleus... for Hammers?

Sorry I can resist.

Named after the historical book Malleus Maleifacrum, or Hammer of Witches. Well in the public domain these days, as is Matthew Hopkins’ literary drivel. Both worth a read if you fancy laughing at it ignorance.

Which is of course why the Ordo Malleus has nothing to do with witches, since that's the Ordo Hereticus.

Inquisition never should have been a stand alone faction to begin with.
It would be like trying to build a whole faction out of assassins.

Rogue traders makes more sense as a stand alone faction to me.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Inquisition never should have been a stand alone faction to begin with.
It would be like trying to build a whole faction out of assassins.

Rogue traders makes more sense as a stand alone faction to me.

Inquisition forces exist in sizes that the table of 40k provides, and people want to be able to play cohesive and usable forces that replicate that.
Often the biggest issue is even attaching them to a force is more difficult and rules intense for what they can provide the game, GW should work out what they want to do with them and work towards making it work.
Even if it’s just a book that gives them a special IG regiment force, that lets them bring in a unit of DW marines, grey knights or sisters easy and without weird or silly hoops that ad little to the game.
That’s really what I think a lot of people would be happy with.
And a special rule that lets them tag along with those forces as well in a natural way.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Inquisition never should have been a stand alone faction to begin with.

Why?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It would be like trying to build a whole faction out of assassins.

Except it's not. Clearly. Demonstrably so.

It would be really cool to have a "Codex: all the random small factions" tbh. There are a few small factions introduced with kill team and necromunda that could go in there too and just add the faction key word to it. And just think GW can make a ton of money selling all players a book that each person only needs one or two sheets from......(well except the Protagonists)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Inquisition never should have been a stand alone faction to begin with.

Why?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It would be like trying to build a whole faction out of assassins.

Except it's not. Clearly. Demonstrably so.

Because they are a Secret Police that commandeer local resources, not a garrison force. They should have a Data sheet or two designed for working with various variations of IMPERIUM forces. I mean a few sheets tailored for Guard synergy, a few for Marines/Deathwatch and/or Sisters Such that when they're the Warlord/HQ these tactics/doctrines/whatever apply to represent their leadership as opposed to the home faction leaders.

Breton wrote:
Because they are a Secret Police that commandeer local resources, not a garrison force.

Not they're not. And yes they are. And sometimes they are. And sometimes they're not..

The Inquisition are not centralised. There is no set way to be an Inquisitor. Some of them are lone investigators, working in secret, saving worlds without anyone ever knowing they are there. Others are firebrand zealots that demand the resources of entire sectors to meet their goals, leading personal armies into battle after battle.

There is every reason to have Inquisition on the field of battle, leading armies.

If they "shouldn't" be doing that, then Marines armies should be tiny and Custodes shouldn't be something you can take at all. But they are, and we can, so why would Inquisitors be any different?

There's dozens of books where Inquisitors lead armies ranging from a few hundred to a many thousands.

They have a unique role different from IG officers squinting at maps or SM commanders waving oversized swords and screaming.

And they're fun!

I think the whole idea of how Inquisitors start as Puritans who would never touch Chaos and end up as Radicals with their own pet demons and howling rune swords is actually brilliant and would love to see a way to simulate it on the table.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Because they are a Secret Police that commandeer local resources, not a garrison force.

Not they're not. And yes they are. And sometimes they are. And sometimes they're not..

The Inquisition are not centralised. There is no set way to be an Inquisitor. Some of them are lone investigators, working in secret, saving worlds without anyone ever knowing they are there. Others are firebrand zealots that demand the resources of entire sectors to meet their goals, leading personal armies into battle after battle.

There is every reason to have Inquisition on the field of battle, leading armies.

You just made the same point I did to disagree with my conclusion. "Demanding the resources of entire sectors" Leading armies. They should be a partial list that slots into other armies as replacements for the leadership/keynote units that then cause those base units to play differently.

Breton wrote:

You just made the same point I did to disagree with my conclusion. "Demanding the resources of entire sectors" Leading armies. They should be a partial list that slots into other armies as replacements for the leadership/keynote units that then cause those base units to play differently.

The issue here is that the 500-3k points that we see on a battlefield often represent a slice of the "army" - so if a command section of Inquisition is coordinating action between 2 companies of one chapter, one of another, two regiments, three missions and a preceptory, perhaps the models that we see in some of the of the battles fought are JUST the Inquisitorial slice of the combined force.

This is especially important given that 9th ed 40k was designed to be a game where 500 point battles are just as important as 2k battles. A 25-50 PL Inquisition Crusade is a pretty cool little narrative force; it needs a dex to support it. When it commandeers other Imperial forces, they should be able to join as additional detachments if that's how the player wants it done, or the Inquisition forces should be able to join as Agents if that's what the player wants. Currently, neither of these options work as well as they should- the Inquisition list isn't good enough as is to build a decent detachment due to a lack of troops and transports; furthermore an Inquisition detachment breaks the purity rules of allied detachments. It's possible for a single Inquisitor to join as an Agent without breaking purity, but said Inquisitor can't bring any other Ordo units along when they join this way.

Breton wrote:
You just made the same point I did to disagree with my conclusion.

No, because that's not all they do. You're attempting to put the Inquisition into a single box, which is a fool's errand, and with that box say that they shouldn't be their own faction.

I'm saying that they're far more expansive than you're giving them credit for, and there's no reason they couldn't lead their own faction. I mean, that's what the Chambers Militant are for...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
You just made the same point I did to disagree with my conclusion.

No, because that's not all they do. You're attempting to put the Inquisition into a single box, which is a fool's errand, and with that box say that they shouldn't be their own faction.

I'm saying that they're far more expansive than you're giving them credit for, and there's no reason they couldn't lead their own faction. I mean, that's what the Chambers Militant are for...

As a problem that is easily solvable, nothing prevents us having several tiers or ranks of Inquisitor represented by different rules on the tabletop, you can easily have something like an itinerant/undercover/travelling inquisitor with a retinue as a choice somewhere between support character, elite squad or killteam, and something like inquisitor militant / lord inquisitor as a figurehead or commander of a larger force. If you want to you can work stuff like Outcasts, Radicals, Puritans and so on into it, with specific options locking out others and so on, no Demonhosts if you have Grey Knights etc. etc.

PenitentJake wrote:
; it needs a dex to support it. When it commandeers other Imperial forces, they should be able to join as additional detachments if that's how the player wants it done, or the Inquisition forces should be able to join as Agents if that's what the player wants. Currently, neither of these options work as well as they should- the Inquisition list isn't good enough as is to build a decent detachment due to a lack of troops and transports; furthermore an Inquisition detachment breaks the purity rules of allied detachments. It's possible for a single Inquisitor to join as an Agent without breaking purity, but said Inquisitor can't bring any other Ordo units along when they join this way.

Yes, it does need a Dex, but not a full Dex. They don't need to have their own big lumbering walkers, heavy weapons infantry, Tanks, Transports, and so on. It should have HQ's, Elite characters, potentially a smattering of squads that would then dovetail/modify existing squads from other dexes. It should work as either an Inquisition led force with a couple-few HQ's, and Elites then a bunch of Squads from X-Watch, or other chapters/Regiments, or an Inquisition supplemented force of a Marine chapter or Guard Regiment with a couple Elites and maybe an HQ. There should be some rules that allows the Inquisitor Led force to take stuff from another Dex, and everyone gets a faction keyword, with then triggers a Faction Keyword Detachment which THEN triggers a Faction Doctrine/whatever set. Much like the way GSC works/worked with borrowing Guard units as a guide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Chambers Militant are for...

The Chambers Militant already have their own Dex - and I've already pointed out they or the AM Codex should be where much of the Inquisitor led army should come from.

The Siege of Vraks is a great example. By the conclusion of the siege, the Inquisitorial forces present upon the planet consisted of dozens of Inquisitors and their retinues, including the most senior Inquisitor within the sector, proctor-general Hector Rex. They brought their personal gear, such as Landraiders. Several companies of Inquisitorial stormtroopers were deployed (under direct Inquisition control). Multiple companies of the Red Hunters Astartes Chapter were deployed (also under direct Inquisitorial control through ancient pacts). Millions of DKoK guardsmen from the 88th Siege Army had been inducted via Inquisitorial Mandate and were under the direct control of the Inquisition, with Inquisitors leading units at multiple levels, Hector Rex being commander in chief. The Grey Knights were deployed to the siege as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Malleus, under the overall leadership of Hector Rex.

The only units deployed that were not directly controlled by the Inquisition, but instead operated under voluntary cooperation, were the Red Scorpions and Angels of Absolution Astartes deployments and the Legio Astorum titans.

We have also seen specialised Inquisitorial units like D-99, an augmented unit of IG veterans under permanent Inquisitorial control.

An Inquisitorial force extends in scope from a lone operative, through kill teams and combat patrols, to entire indentured combined-arms forces millions strong. On the scale of a 40k battlefield, it is easy to have a solely-Inquisition force.

 Haighus wrote:
The Siege of Vraks is a great example. By the conclusion of the siege, the Inquisitorial forces present upon the planet consisted of dozens of Inquisitors and their retinues, including the most senior Inquisitor within the sector, proctor-general Hector Rex. They brought their personal gear, such as Landraiders.

Because of how I'd do the alternate Codex recruiting, I would be inclined to include a Land Raider data sheet with a touched up Transport section - I had forgotten about Inquisitors in Terminator Armor who might be with Guard who would not be <CHAPTER> infantry.

Several companies of Inquisitorial stormtroopers were deployed (under direct Inquisition control). Multiple companies of the Red Hunters Astartes Chapter were deployed (also under direct Inquisitorial control through ancient pacts). Millions of DKoK guardsmen from the 88th Siege Army had been inducted via Inquisitorial Mandate and were under the direct control of the Inquisition, with Inquisitors leading units at multiple levels, Hector Rex being commander in chief. The Grey Knights were deployed to the siege as the Chamber Militant of the Ordo Malleus, under the overall leadership of Hector Rex.

Direct Control is not the same as Codex of Origin for lack of a better term. Marneus Calgar ran the defense of Vigilus which included some Space Wolves, but that didn't make them Ultramarines. It made them Space Wolves that took orders from an Ultramarine. Just like the DKOK were still DKOK who took orders from the Inquisition. The Red Hunters were not Inquisition troops, they were Adeptus Astartes who took orders from the Inquisition.

The only units deployed that were not directly controlled by the Inquisition, but instead operated under voluntary cooperation, were the Red Scorpions and Angels of Absolution Astartes deployments and the Legio Astorum titans.

We have also seen specialised Inquisitorial units like D-99, an augmented unit of IG veterans under permanent Inquisitorial control.

An Inquisitorial force extends in scope from a lone operative, through kill teams and combat patrols, to entire indentured combined-arms forces millions strong. On the scale of a 40k battlefield, it is easy to have a solely-Inquisition force.

As even you've just pointed out its not a solely-Inquisition force, its an amalgamated force that is led by the Inquisition. The Inquisition Dex should be all about the two different ways to add/make the Inquisition force, and then the mechanics for the various options to do it - be it Deathwatch or Catachans or Sisters of the Bloody Rose or whatever. I think the Inquisition led force should have to pick one codex to pick from in addition to their own - Space Marine, Sisters, AM - and there should be a set of Doctrine/whatever for if they're led by an Inquisitor and pull from whicever. I think there should be anoter section for when they're Imperial Agents assisting an OTHER force, with some sort of force multiplier or some other benefit based on what the OTHER faction is. But we don't need a book with Inquisitorial DKOK squads, or Inquisitorial Deathwatch Redemptor Dreads.

I agree that an Inquisitorial codex shouldn't duplicate the other Imperial codices and should have rules to allow easier allying.

However, I think small forces should be entirely doable in an Inquisition codex alone, particularly in games from the 500-1000pt range.

Henchmen are really variable, and should include options like augmented troopers. Inquisitorial Stormtroopers would be the mainstay though- these are distinct from Scions and could be given some interesting special gear.

I'd be very happy to roll in the other Agents of the Imperium as various indentured forces- Naval armsmen, Arbites, Rogue Traders etc. fit well in this role.

Added together and a small force should be easy to build. It would be limited beyond a certain size without adding another force.

For the record, Red Hunters are technically separate, but operate entirely at the behest of the Inquisition. They usually deploy as honour guards to individual Inquisitors and rarely deploy in strengths sufficient for independent operations. I don't think this is common enough to add a Marine honour guard to an Inquisitorial codex, but it does happen.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
There's dozens of books where Inquisitors lead armies ranging from a few hundred to a many thousands.

They have a unique role different from IG officers squinting at maps or SM commanders waving oversized swords and screaming.

And they're fun!

I think the whole idea of how Inquisitors start as Puritans who would never touch Chaos and end up as Radicals with their own pet demons and howling rune swords is actually brilliant and would love to see a way to simulate it on the table.

Cant argue with that and it is a fun bit of fluff which could represent different leading styles in the rules and potentially different models.

GW seems to want to expand the imperium range so can see it happening.

I wouldn't mind a combined inquisition and rogue trader book, (call it imperial agents?), as the possible retinues for both seem really similar.
This would allow different henchmen and access to Navy breaches etc. all in one book.
Add in the assassin's and so on, too.

Personally my issue with the Inquisition style armies is that they were born of a time when GW was happily souping armies together with alliances everywhere.

The problem there is that the Imperial faction has an insane number of choices across multiple complete armies. As soon as you start to allow that to ally together the potential min-maxing becomes insane to try and balance into the game (unless you go for every army having the exact same unit types and stats and just different purely visually).



I feel like the best way to represent the Inquisition is either to have them as a unit option within an existing Imperial army. This ties them down to one or two forces, but means that the Inquisitor's stats are part of the army stats in general.

They can still take allies in that force, but they are limited by the same restrictions as currently are present. Basically you're not making an Inquisition army, just an Inquisitor character within an army.



The other option is to lean into them heavily and make an entire dedicated Inquisitional army from the ground up. Unique models that represent their unique slant on things. This might mean that they have Imperial Guard of a certain elite kind. It might mean they do some unit sharing with other forces, but have different stats - again representing that the Inquisition is often going to favour the most highly or uniquely skilled.


Giving them their own armed force means that it can be a balanced force that doesn't lean into Min-Maxing and alos means that they actually bring something new and unique to them to the table. They aren't just a mish-mash of favoured Imperial models and a mockery of balance (accepting that GW's balance is always a bit of a fragile thing in general)

 Overread wrote:
Personally my issue with the Inquisition style armies is that they were born of a time when GW was happily souping armies together with alliances everywhere.

The problem there is that the Imperial faction has an insane number of choices across multiple complete armies. As soon as you start to allow that to ally together the potential min-maxing becomes insane to try and balance into the game (unless you go for every army having the exact same unit types and stats and just different purely visually).



I feel like the best way to represent the Inquisition is either to have them as a unit option within an existing Imperial army. This ties them down to one or two forces, but means that the Inquisitor's stats are part of the army stats in general.

They can still take allies in that force, but they are limited by the same restrictions as currently are present. Basically you're not making an Inquisition army, just an Inquisitor character within an army.



The other option is to lean into them heavily and make an entire dedicated Inquisitional army from the ground up. Unique models that represent their unique slant on things. This might mean that they have Imperial Guard of a certain elite kind. It might mean they do some unit sharing with other forces, but have different stats - again representing that the Inquisition is often going to favour the most highly or uniquely skilled.


Giving them their own armed force means that it can be a balanced force that doesn't lean into Min-Maxing and alos means that they actually bring something new and unique to them to the table. They aren't just a mish-mash of favoured Imperial models and a mockery of balance (accepting that GW's balance is always a bit of a fragile thing in general)

If we go the latter route you mentioned, i could almost see them being kind of like GSC, a handful of core units (Stormtroopers, Inducted Guard squads+Chamber militant squads?) and then a roster of characters to support them, either with buffs (Savants, Techpriests, Sage, Jokero), or by being beatsticks (Daemonhost, Crusaders, Death Cult Assassins).

Breton wrote:


The Chambers Militant already have their own Dex - and I've already pointed out they or the AM Codex should be where much of the Inquisitor led army should come from.

I'd have no objection to putting Inquistions and their freak patrols back in the GK/DW/SoB books.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


I'd have no objection to putting Inquistions and their freak patrols back in the GK/DW/SoB books.

I don't have MUCH of one. I like the idea of an Inquisition/Imerial Agents/Pick Your Name as the handbook for Imperial Soup. This is how you run multiple SM Chapters together as a Crusader Force with, or without an Inquisitor. This is how you run Inquisitors in charge of SM, or in charge of AM.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Breton wrote:


The Chambers Militant already have their own Dex - and I've already pointed out they or the AM Codex should be where much of the Inquisitor led army should come from.

I'd have no objection to putting Inquistions and their freak patrols back in the GK/DW/SoB books.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, this means putting the Arbites, Navy Breachers, Acolytes, and Voidsmen data cards into 3 books instead of one. Ditto with the hench, unless we say Jokaero are only for Xenos and Daemonbound are only for GK.

An agents book honestly is the better solution. It also encourages GW to ad things to the list- like transports, enginseers, battle conclave units (and characters- the DCA Executioner and Crusader Exemplar).

I don't know about the GK/DW books but the SoB book already has a half hearted runt army of Cult Imperialis rolled into their book. It doesn't really need diluting further with Agents of the Imperium (particularly when the datasheets could be useful for other factions).

A Chaos Daemons style 'dex seems the best option giving access to these units. Allow them to be taken by any Imperial army without breaking anything and work in synergies where they work better with their 'correct' feaction (eg Ordo Xenos with DW).

The Content Validity Document has been updated - Imperial Agents are now legal until June.

Cool, but as stated above, I'll continue to use them for as long as their rues continue to be compatible with the edition regardless of whether or not a GW document says they're valid.

 PaddyMick wrote:
The Content Validity Document has been updated - Imperial Agents are now legal until June.

Imperial Agents in War of the Spider isn't Inqusition, it's Assassins. Inquisiton was in Octarius 1, which has been confirmed to be totally invalid.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Inquisition never should have been a stand alone faction to begin with.

Why?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
It would be like trying to build a whole faction out of assassins.

Except it's not. Clearly. Demonstrably so.

yes and we can and always have been able to represent inquisitorial forces via marines (particularly DW), guard, and SoB. Scions/stormtroopers have always been a unit that are used by inquisitorial forces.
Aside from inquisitor’s retinue there’s really nothing unique about the inquisitorial forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Apple fox wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Inquisition never should have been a stand alone faction to begin with.
It would be like trying to build a whole faction out of assassins.

Rogue traders makes more sense as a stand alone faction to me.

Inquisition forces exist in sizes that the table of 40k provides, and people want to be able to play cohesive and usable forces that replicate that.
Often the biggest issue is even attaching them to a force is more difficult and rules intense for what they can provide the game, GW should work out what they want to do with them and work towards making it work.
Even if it’s just a book that gives them a special IG regiment force, that lets them bring in a unit of DW marines, grey knights or sisters easy and without weird or silly hoops that ad little to the game.
That’s really what I think a lot of people would be happy with.
And a special rule that lets them tag along with those forces as well in a natural way.

they don’t need their own codex for any of that. You can bring DW detachment with a guard detachment.

There’s not enough unique stuff to justify a codex.

 Overread wrote:
Personally my issue with the Inquisition style armies is that they were born of a time when GW was happily souping armies together with alliances everywhere.

The problem there is that the Imperial faction has an insane number of choices across multiple complete armies. As soon as you start to allow that to ally together the potential min-maxing becomes insane to try and balance into the game (unless you go for every army having the exact same unit types and stats and just different purely visually).

I believe the old books handled the soup within the dex by limiting the units it can take from other books and had limitations on when you could bring them. For example Daemonhunters could not bring both Space Marines and Grey Knights, and most units were 0-1 allowed. Something similar could easily be done with a new book - say making your Ordo Malleus Inquisitor unlock Grey Knights in your detachment, but you don't get access to the full dex, or its 0-1 of non troop units.

In terms of models, the main thing the faction would need is a generic Inquisitor kit that has multiple builds to it, Inquisitorial Stormtroopers, a customizable "goon" box, and a daemonhost. Outside of that, most of their old toys are now in other books (or would also end up in an Agents book, ie: assassins). Anything else is just extra (though if well thought out and executed, welcome) at that point.

PenitentJake wrote:
Cool, but as stated above, I'll continue to use them for as long as their rues continue to be compatible with the edition regardless of whether or not a GW document says they're valid.

Well you might not be playing in tournaments or random pick up games. Doesn't mean nobody is. So good change.

I think inquisition are one of those factions that gw (rightly or wrongly) considers narrative rather than matched play factions. The likes of corsairs and renegades also go here over history of game. Narrative players should probably be the most annoyed that they keep killing and resuscitating them

Honestly I just think Inquisition is a something that works as a few leader choices or special characters within a regular Imperial army. Make 5 or 6 and put one in each Imperial army and you've got your variety of choice. Pick the core army with an Inquisitor and then just use the normal allies rules to bring in a little of something else.



I feel like Inquisition as an army is born of GW's marketing in the late Kirby era when they were looking to add armies to 40K with low investment.

Inquisition - a few leaders and soup together the Imperials
Yinnari - a single box of leaders and soup together the Eldar
Marines - soup the new sculpts in with the old (I'm almost 100% convinced Primaris started out life as just the new wave of Marine sculpts)

Of course we also got things like Genestealer Cults breaking out into their own army (though I'd argue that didn't fully happen until their second wave where they dropped most of the need to take a full Imperial Guard army as their core/bulk)

Harlequins also had a fair go at being their own army, but never got a big second wave to really make them stand out and thus they've rolled back into Craftworld.



I feel like GW at that time was looking for ways to add armies rather than update existing ones (eg big Eldar update) and was looking for lore tight ways without repeating the Tau method of adding a force.

It kind of worked but also kind of felt like some were really low investment attempts.


I think GW has shifted angles.

This seems possible, i believe they have slowed down with the new faction releases in AoS too? If any new faction releases in future are to be more fleshed out like our space dwarf friends I'd see that as a positive.

Dai wrote:
This seems possible, i believe they have slowed down with the new faction releases in AoS too? If any new faction releases in future are to be more fleshed out like our space dwarf friends I'd see that as a positive.

AoS was just a sheer mess.
I think right now the only army that's still a mess is Cities of Sigmar where we know GW are updating the human component of them. However they still have most of the Dwarf models; almost the entire Dark Elf army and what's survived from high and wood elves. I still think those parts of Cities are something GW isn't clear on what they are doing with. Heck every Gotrek book they release seems to end with "and then he goes on to work on his plan to reunite the dwarves and all" and it fizzles.

But yeah GW slowed down with Aos, but there there's a LOT of armies that are very small model ranges which need beefing up coupled with a lot of old sculpts. There's only one lore army that's missing and that's the Shadow Aelf army under Malarion who rule most of the Shadow Realm. Indeed it was surprising to me that GW released Ossiarchs from almost nowhere instead of shadow Aelves that they'd been teasing as a concept since the start of AoS.

That's really the last army I expect to see fully new in AoS. After that I feel like AoS just needs to keep its head down on new armies and focus on beefing up and updating things. Get Flesheaters some new sculpts; get Fyreslayers some diversity; get Skaven some updates

 Overread wrote:

Dai wrote:
This seems possible, i believe they have slowed down with the new faction releases in AoS too? If any new faction releases in future are to be more fleshed out like our space dwarf friends I'd see that as a positive.

AoS was just a sheer mess.
I think right now the only army that's still a mess is Cities of Sigmar where we know GW are updating the human component of them. However they still have most of the Dwarf models; almost the entire Dark Elf army and what's survived from high and wood elves. I still think those parts of Cities are something GW isn't clear on what they are doing with. Heck every Gotrek book they release seems to end with "and then he goes on to work on his plan to reunite the dwarves and all" and it fizzles.

But yeah GW slowed down with Aos, but there there's a LOT of armies that are very small model ranges which need beefing up coupled with a lot of old sculpts. There's only one lore army that's missing and that's the Shadow Aelf army under Malarion who rule most of the Shadow Realm. Indeed it was surprising to me that GW released Ossiarchs from almost nowhere instead of shadow Aelves that they'd been teasing as a concept since the start of AoS.

That's really the last army I expect to see fully new in AoS. After that I feel like AoS just needs to keep its head down on new armies and focus on beefing up and updating things. Get Flesheaters some new sculpts; get Fyreslayers some diversity; get Skaven some updates

There's also Chaos Dwarfs, they also got a fair amount of teasing and are a fan favourite, so i guess they'll get at least some love too before the stage of new armies is closed for some time.

Ahh true! Though I really do kind of hope that Chaos Dwarves would come after a big update to the main core dwarf force. OR GW should squat them and stop teasing them and just have Dwarves as Khadoran and Fyreslayer and give Slayers some actual core army updates.

 Overread wrote:
Honestly I just think Inquisition is a something that works as a few leader choices or special characters within a regular Imperial army. Make 5 or 6 and put one in each Imperial army and you've got your variety of choice. Pick the core army with an Inquisitor and then just use the normal allies rules to bring in a little of something else.



I feel like Inquisition as an army is born of GW's marketing in the late Kirby era when they were looking to add armies to 40K with low investment.

Inquisition - a few leaders and soup together the Imperials
Yinnari - a single box of leaders and soup together the Eldar
Marines - soup the new sculpts in with the old (I'm almost 100% convinced Primaris started out life as just the new wave of Marine sculpts)

Of course we also got things like Genestealer Cults breaking out into their own army (though I'd argue that didn't fully happen until their second wave where they dropped most of the need to take a full Imperial Guard army as their core/bulk)

Harlequins also had a fair go at being their own army, but never got a big second wave to really make them stand out and thus they've rolled back into Craftworld.



I feel like GW at that time was looking for ways to add armies rather than update existing ones (eg big Eldar update) and was looking for lore tight ways without repeating the Tau method of adding a force.

It kind of worked but also kind of felt like some were really low investment attempts.


I think GW has shifted angles.

Inquisition as an army predates that late-7th early-8th era by nearly a decade and a half as part of mid-3rd editon. (Just on the border of 3.5) the isse came that sisters never got updated until 5th, and GK took the forefront of the 4e codex, and 5ths trend of paring things down saw the Inqusition divorced from their chambers militant. Leaving a gaggle of chracters in a pair of 3e dexes until Imperial Agents in 7th. And that was more of a catchall book more than a proper army.

I think Inquisiton could work as an army given the GSC treatment. A few core units, a gaggle of support/beatstick chaeacters, and the ability to take patrols of other factions.

HQ:

All the named
Hereticus Lord
Xenos Lord
Malleus Lord
Malleus Terminator Lord

Elites:
Hereticus Inquisitor
Xenos Inquisitor
Malleus Inquisitor
Assassins

Retinue- 5-10 models chosen from:
Interrogator (All)
Lex Mechanic (All)
Combat Servitor (All)
Ordnance Servitor (All)
Veteran (All)
Bound Psyker (All)
Priest (Hereticus)
Jokaero (Xenos)
Daemonhost (Malleus)
DCA's (All)
Crusaders (All)
Master of the Fleet (All)
Master of Ordnance (All)
Astropath (All)

Troops:
Acolytes
Navy Breachers
Arbites
Scions/ Stormtroopers

Transports:
Land Raider (with some variants)
Rhino
Valkyrie
Immolator (Hereticus only)
Corvus Blackstar (Xenos only)

This would do it. I haven't included any FA or Heavy spots- I figure if they want FA or Heavies, they take an Outrider or Spearhead detachment from there Chamber list. I didn't really want to add Chamber units to the Inquisition list, but I had to throw in DCAs and Crusaders, because there are enough different Death Cults and Crusader Orders that each Ordo should have one dedicated to their specific cause.

When Inq soup with their Chamber, an entire Inquisition detachment should be treated as Agents, rather than just one unit. All Ordos should be able to soup like this with Guard as well.

Keep the rules for adding an Inquisitor Lord as a Single Agent too- maybe allow a retinue to be added as an Agent unit in addition to the Inquisitor (but also maybe not- Chamber being able to soup with an entire Inquisition Detachment might be enough to allow people to include retinues in Chamber dominant armies).

Obviously you also need general and Ordo specific strats, WL traits, relics and Crusade content.

That's more than enough for a dex. I suppose we could add some Chamber FA and Heavy if we had to, but I genuinely think the soup rules are a better way to handle that. I see the Inquisition as having their own HQ, Elites and Troops, but having to recruit Chambers for massed specialists.

What about minor Ordos and Inquisitorial Chimeras in transports?

 Haighus wrote:
What about minor Ordos and Inquisitorial Chimeras in transports?

Under the current regime, minor Ordos is something that would probably be realized as either a stratagem or with something like the Grand Cult rules for TS or the Genestealer subcults, and applied to a generic Inquisitor unit.

Umbros wrote:

Given how popular Inquisition is amongst fans of the background, it is truly baffling that they continue to undersupport it.

but is it? what do they really need, to make an inquisition army? an inquisitor and then whatever imperial army you like. that's the whole reason they don't deserve an entire codex.

and people being fans of something in the background is very different than people wanting to spend money on models for the game.
inquisitors are a great mechanism for story telling, the inquisition is not so much of a great idea for an entire codex.

I've been slowly working on a small inquisition force with a Land Raider Prometheus or 3. It's been a perfect force for small games and dipping my toe into imperial forces.

An Imperial Agents codex with all the Rogue Trader stuff, Arbites, etc would be exactly what I'd want.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 PaddyMick wrote:
The Content Validity Document has been updated - Imperial Agents are now legal until June.

Imperial Agents in War of the Spider isn't Inqusition, it's Assassins. Inquisiton was in Octarius 1, which has been confirmed to be totally invalid.

Which is irrelevant, because you cant play assassins in AoO. You cant include them in an AoO detachment because their agent of the imperium rule only works when they are in a patrol, brigade, or battallion detachment, including them in an AoO detachment would make that detachment an illegal IMPERIUM detachment. You cant use them in an AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM patrol detachment (battle brothers rule), because they dont have the AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM faction keyword. You cant use them in a vanguard detachment (with their execution force rule) because there is no vanguard detachment in AoO.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
but is it? what do they really need, to make an inquisition army? an inquisitor and then whatever imperial army you like. that's the whole reason they don't deserve an entire codex.

We've been over this.

Minimally, for datasheets, there are 5 named Inquisitors and 3 generic; there is a generic Rogue Trader profile, but there are 3 named Rogue Trader possibilities in addition to that. Then there are Voidsmen, Breachers and now Arbites. Jokaero and Crusaders are still on the Inquisition tab for the webstore. Acolytes have a card, but no models. Then there's assassins... Four more data sheets.

That's what we have right now. It's a fair number of dataslates, and they need somewhere to live that ISN'T a book that comes with a seasonal campaign book with a built in expiration date or a White Dwarf with an even shorter availability window.

Clearly, an Imperial Agents book has a role to fill. Especially in THIS edition, while bespoke Crusade content is still the norm; as a guy who plans to keep using Octarius content until there are actual reasons not to (besides GW's decree), I was choked that Rogue Traders got Crusade content and Inquisition didn't.

PenitentJake wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
but is it? what do they really need, to make an inquisition army? an inquisitor and then whatever imperial army you like. that's the whole reason they don't deserve an entire codex.

We've been over this.

Minimally, for datasheets, there are 5 named Inquisitors and 3 generic; there is a generic Rogue Trader profile, but there are 3 named Rogue Trader possibilities in addition to that. Then there are Voidsmen, Breachers and now Arbites. Jokaero and Crusaders are still on the Inquisition tab for the webstore. Acolytes have a card, but no models. Then there's assassins... Four more data sheets.

That's what we have right now. It's a fair number of dataslates, and they need somewhere to live that ISN'T a book that comes with a seasonal campaign book with a built in expiration date or a White Dwarf with an even shorter availability window.

Clearly, an Imperial Agents book has a role to fill. Especially in THIS edition, while bespoke Crusade content is still the norm; as a guy who plans to keep using Octarius content until there are actual reasons not to (besides GW's decree), I was choked that Rogue Traders got Crusade content and Inquisition didn't.

It's fair to assume they'd get some transports and maybe flyers included, land raider maybe in the heavy slot. An argument can be made for a selection of the house militant units that fit, such as penitent engines and flagellants, maybe a one-size-fits-all deathwatch team, some tempestus as well.

Yeah, asking "what data sheets do inquisition need" after GW stripped out all their Inquisition specific stuff is just mindboggling, haha.

There is enough content in prior Inquisition books to make a codex (I.e. witch hunters minis SoB combined with Daemonhunters without GK). GW just removed/legends most of it.

HQs:
Inquisitor Lord with tons of options
Inquisitor with tons of options
Inquisitorial Henchmen (1 unit per inquisitor, unit size max 6 for regular or 12 for Lord) with extremely different options
Special character inquisitors

Elites:
Non-retinue Henchmen (many of whom would be separate characters in 9th).

Troops:
Inquisitorial Storm Troopers with tons of options

Transports:
Inquisitorial Chimera

Heavy Support:
Inquisitorial Land Raider

Fast Attack (Flyers now):
Inquisitorial Valkyrie


Then, give them access to a restricted list of options from other imperial codexes, which lose their original keywords and gain the Inquisition and Ordo keywords.

I think Boarding Action is a perfect way to bring Inquisition into 40K. Our group are doing an Inquisition wars mini campaign just using Boarding action. I’m going hereticus. Completely ignore building restrictions so I’m going to have Greyfax, 10 novitiates, 5 scions, some acolytes, 3 arch flagellants, 2 crusaders and a preacher.

Don’t need GW to dictate how I have fun. Our group is excited for the upcoming games.

 bullyboy wrote:
I think Boarding Action is a perfect way to bring Inquisition into 40K. Our group are doing an Inquisition wars mini campaign just using Boarding action. I’m going hereticus. Completely ignore building restrictions so I’m going to have Greyfax, 10 novitiates, 5 scions, some acolytes, 3 arch flagellants, 2 crusaders and a preacher.

Don’t need GW to dictate how I have fun. Our group is excited for the upcoming games.

That's a cool little list.

One of my favourite little lists that has always been legal is to load Kyria Draxus and a Watchmaster with a 10-strong Proteus Kill Team in a Corvus Blackstar. In battle, the Proteus Team splits, with half acting as the Honour Guard for the Inquisitor while the others guard the Watchmaster. That is a comic book Crusade force where everyone gets to be a character and share a ride.

But if I was going to throw out restrictions, I'd want to run Kyria with a Jokaero, a Zoat and some Corsairs- probably one unit of the elites and one of the regular troops units.

Another good one is Karamazov's Penitent Legion: It's Karamazov leading as many penitent engines, arco-flagellants, mortifiers and repentia as you can field. Using Necromunda Redemptionists as priests is cool for this army too. Arbitrators work really well with Karamazov because their role as police overlaps with his role as a judge, and they can fit as the custodians of the flagellants and penitent engines, so they can be made to fit the theme.

I'd want Greyfax to run with SoS and a band of acolytes converted from AoS and Cursed City Witch Hunters. If GW ever makes 40k rules for the Kharon Pattern Acquisitor. I'd drop the Acolytes and double down on the SoS and use the Acquisitor to transport the lot of them.

If I did Malleus, I'd load the '22 Store Anniversary Inquisitor (I forget his name) into a land raider with some GK. I haven't given this one much thought because I'm fairly new to GK, having only the contents of the Hexfire box to choose from and no land raider for the ride.

I thought Greyfax is psyker though, she might struggle with being in a box with a bunch of blanks...

 Haighus wrote:
I thought Greyfax is psyker though, she might struggle with being in a box with a bunch of blanks...

Yeah... True. I thought of them as a back-up for her, because they would be useful for hunting witches... But you're right, their abilities aren't targeted, nor do they come with an off switch. Maybe that needs a rethink.

In the Bequin novels there are machines that can block the null effect of a Blank and are small enough to be worn on the wrist.

Interestingly they seem to somehow amplify the impact of the null effect when they are suddenly turned off. Perhaps rather like a dam being opened on people going form no null effect around them to a sudden massive impact. So that even on regular people it has quite a marked impact.

 Overread wrote:
In the Bequin novels there are machines that can block the null effect of a Blank and are small enough to be worn on the wrist.

Interestingly they seem to somehow amplify the impact of the null effect when they are suddenly turned off. Perhaps rather like a dam being opened on people going form no null effect around them to a sudden massive impact. So that even on regular people it has quite a marked impact.

Rather than a stronger impact, like a dam breaking and pressure building up, I always interpreted this as a case of acclimatization or the lack thereof. Like a bad smell, you get used to it when your around it for a while or as you get closer to the source it gets stronger so you subconsciously brace yourself for it, but if it appears suddenly all at once it can be overwhelming and surprising, and seem to be stronger than a gradual exposure.

Given the rise of the Squats MkII, you'll have to wait 6 editions to be properly squatted.

Rumours of their demise may have been exaggerated?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/02/13/imperial-agents-datasheet-inquisitors-and-assassins-join-the-battle-against-the-arks-of-omen/

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/kKj593HK6K628syU.pdf

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Rumours of their demise may have been exaggerated?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2023/02/13/imperial-agents-datasheet-inquisitors-and-assassins-join-the-battle-against-the-arks-of-omen/

Nobody expects the... and so on and so on.

Just posted in N&R as well.

Would’ve been nice to include Arbites too, but is what it is.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just posted in N&R as well.

Would’ve been nice to include Arbites too, but is what it is.

On a first glance, the Vindicare seems adequately lethal in the right circumstances. Misread the Callidus, Eversor seems fine, Culexus is meh.

I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Normally free rules mean that they're about to squat something.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Normally free rules mean that they're about to squat something.

I'd not read too much into it, this edition has about 3-6 months of life in it at the most, it's not like they intended to release an actual Inquisition codex in that timeframe anyway. It's probably intended as a slight boost for the standalone breachers box and the other stuff, not as the final nail in the Inquisition coffin.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Normally free rules mean that they're about to squat something.

Nah Free Rules means one of two things:

They can't make money off of it - They don't have enough content/buyers/etc to sell a book.

They want to make money off of it - new model releases like the Gravis Cap and Sword swinging Ancient.

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Legends rules are no longer valid.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Legends rules are no longer valid.

No longer valid for Matched Play.
I can use them just fine.

 Blndmage wrote:
No longer valid for Matched Play.
I can use them just fine.

No longer valid for any game of 40k.

And yes, you can make up your own house rules but if you're going to do that why does it matter that the inquisition units got an update to be legal? You could make up your own house rules to use them before the update.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
No longer valid for Matched Play.
I can use them just fine.

No longer valid for any game of 40k.

Your previous thread where you claimed that was literally closed because you were wrong and GW still offers Legend rules on their pages, so let's not have that unnecessary discussion again.

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Yep, they're back, but be prepared to lose nearly every single game. Not a single stat has changed from their 8th-ed Psychic Awakening rules (and even those were the same as the White Dwarf rules prior with some extra psychic powers and whatnot). Pretty much the only thing they gained out of this was the ability to take the Breachers and Voidsmen as Non-compulsory troops.

Jokero might be okay in Boarding Actions considering it packs some decent firepower in a mode that limits your heavy stuff. (Packs a S8 AP3 3D weapon on a WS4+ 3W, 20pt platform and hands out free rerolls)

Tsagualsa wrote:
Your previous thread where you claimed that was literally closed because you were wrong and GW still off

It was closed, that doesn't mean it was wrong. I cited the very clear statement that those models do not have rules, citing the legends rules as "proof" that the legends rules are still legal is self-referential nonsense. Nobody has cited any rule that would contradict the conclusion that if three models which only had rules in the legends document no longer have rules that must mean that the legends document no longer contains valid rules for 40k.

And this really shouldn't even be a controversial claim. We know that GW has abandoned legends rules (after putting minimal effort into making them) and does not keep them up to date with the rest of the game and we can pretty reasonably predict that they will not be included in 10th, so why is it surprising that GW would directly admit that they don't consider them legal rules anymore?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Legends rules are no longer valid.

GW disagrees with you you know.

You can find the rules on the GW Community page under the FaQs & Downloads tab.

ccs wrote:
GW disagrees with you you know.

You can find the rules on the GW Community page under the FaQs & Downloads tab.

Failure to clean up obsolete downloads (which haven't been updated in 3+ years) doesn't make them legal when we have a more recent statement by GW that they are not valid rules.

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Legends rules are no longer valid.

And why constrain yourself to these very specific forces when Wahapedia has all of the rules for free?

No longer valid for Matched Play.

Incorrect.
According to GW they state MIGHT not be valid for tournament play. They leave that up to the tournament organizers to decide. Go read the rules.

ccs wrote:
Incorrect.
According to GW they state MIGHT not be valid for tournament play. They leave that up to the tournament organizers to decide. Go read the rules.

Nope. That is an old statement in an old document that used to be legal, here is the more recent statement by GW when they put the old Krieg grenadier models up for MTO:

heavy flamer team wrote:
This single resin miniature is a fantastic addition to any Imperial Guard or Death Korps of Krieg collection. There are no rules for using it in games of Warhammer 40,000, but it will make for an excellent painting project, a great component in a larger diorama, or perhaps as a stand-in for another unit – just be sure to clear it with your opponent before it hits the tabletop!

melta and heavy stubber wrote:These resin miniatures depict two Death Korps of Krieg Grenadiers – one with a meltagun and a second with a heavy stubber. The meltagun-wielding miniature can be used as part of a Death Korps of Krieg squadron, forming the core of an Astra Militarum army, ready to capture objectives and fight to the last. While there are no rules available for the heavy stubber-wielding Grenadier, they are nonetheless a fantastic addition to any Imperial Guard or Death Korps of Krieg collection. Either model would make for an excellent painting project, could be used as components in a larger diorama, or perhaps as stand-ins for other miniatures – just be sure to clear it with your opponent before it hits the tabletop!

It's right there in black and white: these models do not have rules but can be a cool painting project or be used as proxies for units which do have rules. And there is nothing about tournament play in there. It says "no rules" not "may not be valid in tournaments" or "can still be used in narrative or open play games" or whatever. If legends rules were valid rules in any format then both of the quoted statements would be false so it is very clear that GW does not consider legends rules valid.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've super excited!
This and a first Imperial force, and R&H via legends + core rules = free 40k rules!

Yep, they're back, but be prepared to lose nearly every single game. Not a single stat has changed from their 8th-ed Psychic Awakening rules

Well the points changed in the MFM. And yeah I wouldn't make an entire army out of them, Points (updates) for the Breachers etc suggest most of their upgrades are free - though the MFM came first, and the Datasheets came second so who knowns if the MFM is valid points for em. Its more headache than I'd want to get into - that said Breacher Squads with hidden power axes and chain fists have some humor appeal. But mostly I'm figuring most people would just add an Inquisitor, Assassin or both and that's about it because of the 1 per limit. If they did add an allied Inquisitor Only Det, there is some potential there - IG might like the Acolytes for power weapons and thunder hammers but it'd be expensive since they didn't get the reduced upgrade costs - JOKAERO WEAPONSMITH isn't going to be much interest to the Marines who already have Las Fusil and Talons, guard probably already have access to better as well. DAEMONHOST are about the only thing I saw interesting enough to bother with a new Det. But I'm still likely to stick with none or a rare Inquisitor/Assassin for their shenanigans only if I have points to burn. The Callidus is best, Vindicare second best probably. The Calidus is probably even its current points good. Pop And Chop is better than 50/50 for it. D6+ 3 is slightly less than the average of 2D6. The Bonus CP cost is just frosting.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

ccs wrote:
Incorrect.
According to GW they state MIGHT not be valid for tournament play. They leave that up to the tournament organizers to decide. Go read the rules.

Nope. That is an old statement in an old document that used to be legal, here is the more recent statement by GW when they put the old Krieg grenadier models up for MTO:

heavy flamer team wrote:
This single resin miniature is a fantastic addition to any Imperial Guard or Death Korps of Krieg collection. There are no rules for using it in games of Warhammer 40,000, but it will make for an excellent painting project, a great component in a larger diorama, or perhaps as a stand-in for another unit – just be sure to clear it with your opponent before it hits the tabletop!

melta and heavy stubber wrote:These resin miniatures depict two Death Korps of Krieg Grenadiers – one with a meltagun and a second with a heavy stubber. The meltagun-wielding miniature can be used as part of a Death Korps of Krieg squadron, forming the core of an Astra Militarum army, ready to capture objectives and fight to the last. While there are no rules available for the heavy stubber-wielding Grenadier, they are nonetheless a fantastic addition to any Imperial Guard or Death Korps of Krieg collection. Either model would make for an excellent painting project, could be used as components in a larger diorama, or perhaps as stand-ins for other miniatures – just be sure to clear it with your opponent before it hits the tabletop!

It's right there in black and white: these models do not have rules but can be a cool painting project or be used as proxies for units which do have rules. And there is nothing about tournament play in there. It says "no rules" not "may not be valid in tournaments" or "can still be used in narrative or open play games" or whatever. If legends rules were valid rules in any format then both of the quoted statements would be false so it is very clear that GW does not consider legends rules valid.

Can you provide a link? There's plenty of historic examples of Warhammer Community preview articles and even GW Webstore descriptions being inaccurate, so it would be interesting to see the context for these.

Even if the specific examples are accurate and in a rules context, is there anything explicitly stating Legends datasheets as a whole are no longer legal for any mode of play? Because GW's site certainly seems to think they're legal:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/legends/#warhammer-40000

The Warhammer 40,000 Legends page contains datasheets and additional wargear options, definitive profiles that will live on their own dedicated page, enabling you to unleash your treasured classics in open, narrative and matched play games, with full points provided to help you balance your games.

Aelyn wrote:
Can you provide a link?

Unfortunately they seem to have been removed once the MTO period ended. But the quotes are taken directly from the product pages on the GW store.

Even if the specific examples are accurate and in a rules context, is there anything explicitly stating Legends datasheets as a whole are no longer legal for any mode of play?

No, but there doesn't need to be anything explicit. If the quotes are accurate then it is an indisputable consequence that legends rules are not valid. There is nothing in any of the available material that even comes close to suggesting that the three specific upgrades to one legends unit were meant to be singled out for invalidation without changing any of the other rules so either the item descriptions were false or legends rules as a whole are not valid rules anymore.

And, again, this should not be a controversial claim. GW's actions have made it very clear that they don't consider legends rules to be real rules, the product descriptions only confirm what we already knew and (should) prove it to the last hold outs who stubbornly insist that legends rules are valid.

Because GW's site certainly seems to think they're legal:

Except that the page is older than the more recent statements that they aren't legal. It's clear that GW called them legal rules at some point in the past (mostly to get people to stop complaining as they soft-banned OOP units and options in preparation for removing them entirely) but the site hasn't been updated in ages and the rule documents are 3-4 years old. It's all just old material that hasn't been cleaned up yet, probably because GW doesn't care enough about the obsolete stuff to pay attention to it until they mass delete the entire download section with the arrival of 10th.

...since when was July 2022 3-4 years ago?

 Dysartes wrote:
...since when was July 2022 3-4 years ago?

That's a single document which added a couple of datasheets to get people to shut up about a couple of removed CSM options. Other than that GW hasn't touched any of it since December 2020 (the FW pseudo-rules) and everything else was last updated in April 2019. GW using legends one more time as a dumping ground and PR move doesn't change the fact that legends in general have been abandoned and are not being treated as real rules.

But that's ok
They were clear that Legends wouldn't be getting continual updates.
It's a stable ruleset.
It's for 8th/9th edition

 Blndmage wrote:
But that's ok
They were clear that Legends wouldn't be getting continual updates.
It's a stable ruleset.
It's for 8th/9th edition

There's a difference between "continual updates" and "making sure the rules even function". If legends rules were real rules they'd at least be getting functional changes to keep up with the codices they're related to, even if they weren't included in the regular point updates and balance dataslates. Keywords would be updated, special rules that changed would be changed to match the codex version, etc. But instead GW has completely abandoned them and left rules which literally do not function anymore. And now GW has provided explicit statements that they do not consider legends to be rules, confirming what we already knew.

I get that there's some emotional work in accepting that you've been baited into investing in soft-banned units which GW is removing from the game but that's how it is. Legends rules were never real rules, GW has openly declared that they don't consider them valid, and they will almost certainly be gone in 10th.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Can you provide a link?

Unfortunately they seem to have been removed once the MTO period ended. But the quotes are taken directly from the product pages on the GW store.

So there is no way for anyone to independently verify this or to confirm it is the current position?

Even if the specific examples are accurate and in a rules context, is there anything explicitly stating Legends datasheets as a whole are no longer legal for any mode of play?

No, but there doesn't need to be anything explicit. If the quotes are accurate then it is an indisputable consequence that legends rules are not valid. There is nothing in any of the available material that even comes close to suggesting that the three specific upgrades to one legends unit were meant to be singled out for invalidation without changing any of the other rules so either the item descriptions were false or legends rules as a whole are not valid rules anymore.

Even assuming the product description (as you have quoted it) is accurate, there's also nothing in the quoted material that suggests that those models having no rules should act as present implying the rest of Legends doesn't. It doesn't make a clear, explicit statement either way.

And, again, this should not be a controversial claim. GW's actions have made it very clear that they don't consider legends rules to be real rules, the product descriptions only confirm what we already knew and (should) prove it to the last hold outs who stubbornly insist that legends rules are valid.

Can you provide any current citation, from the rules team, that indicates they don't think the Legends datasheets are usable?

Because GW's site certainly seems to think they're legal:

Except that the page is older than the more recent statements that they aren't legal.

If the text stating position A has been removed from the official rules source, and the text stating B is still present, the logical conclusion is that B is correct and current and that A is not. Regardless of when the statements were published.

It's clear that GW called them legal rules at some point in the past (mostly to get people to stop complaining as they soft-banned OOP units and options in preparation for removing them entirely) but the site hasn't been updated in ages and the rule documents are 3-4 years old. It's all just old material that hasn't been cleaned up yet, probably because GW doesn't care enough about the obsolete stuff to pay attention to it until they mass delete the entire download section with the arrival of 10th.

That is a reasonable and understandable opinion that, if correct (which is still to be proven), in no way prevents Legends datasheets from being currently legal or usable.

To confirm, your position is that:

- A product description for some made-to-order minis
- Which was in the store section of GW's site (which has precedent for making rules mistakes) rather than the rules resource section
- And which is no longer present on the GW site at all, making it impossible to identify if you didn't happen to catch the description while it was live
- And which did not explicitly say anything about the legality of Legends in general, only about a few specific models

is sufficient to overrule the statement which is currently live on the section of the GW site which explicitly deals with rules and rulings?

Can you understand why we don't feel this is exactly a convincing argument?

Aelyn wrote:
So there is no way for anyone to independently verify this or to confirm it is the current position?

If you want to resort to "you faked the quotes" then I think that's your concession of defeat, especially since I originally posted them while the MTO product pages were still up and anyone who wanted to could easily check their accuracy. People disputed the implications of the quotes but nobody claimed that they were not correct quotes.

Even assuming the product description (as you have quoted it) is accurate, there's also nothing in the quoted material that suggests that those models having no rules should act as present implying the rest of Legends doesn't. It doesn't make a clear, explicit statement either way.

Ok, so you have two possible options here:

1) GW singled out those specific models, models which just happened to be the ones up for MTO and are otherwise unexceptional, to be invalidated while leaving the rest of the rules untouched. GW did not, however, remove them from the rule document, as all three options are still present on the DKoK grenadiers datasheet.

or

2) GW's statement that the models have no rules reflects their general policy towards legends rules: that they are not valid rules anymore.

It's very obvious which one of these is the more likely interpretation, especially since it aligns very well with GW's prior actions (or, more accurately, lack thereof) with legends rules.

Can you understand why we don't feel this is exactly a convincing argument?

I do understand 100%. You have an emotional attachment to those rules and you aren't willing to let them go, despite GW demonstrating by their actions over the past four years that they aren't real rules and now confirming explicitly what we already knew.

Rambling of Warcom marketing people are not a rules source. Furthermore, these posts do not seem to even exist any more. Let it go.

 Crimson wrote:
Rambling of Warcom marketing people are not a rules source. Furthermore, these posts do not seem to even exist any more. Let it go.

That would be a far more compelling argument if "legends rules are not valid" was not already the very clear policy, and if the statement about the Krieg grenadiers was anything more than the final explicit conformation that should get even the most stubborn hold outs to admit that GW does not consider them real rules.

And I'll let it go when people stop talking about legends rules as if they are real rules. They aren't, and the stubborn crusade by a couple of people to get validation for their personal house rules is misleading to new players who aren't aware of the history with those rules.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
So there is no way for anyone to independently verify this or to confirm it is the current position?

If you want to resort to "you faked the quotes" then I think that's your concession of defeat, especially since I originally posted them while the MTO product pages were still up and anyone who wanted to could easily check their accuracy. People disputed the implications of the quotes but nobody claimed that they were not correct quotes.

I'm not trying to say that you faked them, the point is that there is no way for someone to find that independently. If someone was given a model in Legends and wanted to know how to use it, how could they possibly determine whether it's illegal based on text which isn't available via any official source any longer? How can we know that the position as stated was made by the rules team, as opposed to a person who looks after the webstore and doesn't really know about Legends? If it was made by the rules team, how do we know that the quote is representative of the current GW position and hasn't been rolled back like Armour of Contempt was?

Even assuming the product description (as you have quoted it) is accurate, there's also nothing in the quoted material that suggests that those models having no rules should act as present implying the rest of Legends doesn't. It doesn't make a clear, explicit statement either way.

Ok, so you have two possible options here:

1) GW singled out those specific models, models which just happened to be the ones up for MTO and are otherwise unexceptional, to be invalidated while leaving the rest of the rules untouched. GW did not, however, remove them from the rule document, as all three options are still present on the DKoK grenadiers datasheet.

or

2) GW's statement that the models have no rules reflects their general policy towards legends rules: that they are not valid rules anymore.

It's very obvious which one of these is the more likely interpretation, especially since it aligns very well with GW's prior actions (or, more accurately, lack thereof) with legends rules.

I'm saying that there is a third option: That the statement in the product description was made by someone in the webstore team who, for whatever reason, didn't realise that the models actually were legal via Legends.

Given that there is an explicit statement currently on the GW site that the Legends rules are legal, I think it's perfectly valid to reach the conclusion that the Legends rules are legal and that the statement on the product description was either an error or was not intended to set a precedent.

As for the "lack of actions regarding Legends", it's already been cited that there were updates made, in the form of CSM datasheets being added, within the last 12 months. That hardly implies that GW have forgotten about them.

Can you understand why we don't feel this is exactly a convincing argument?

I do understand 100%. You have an emotional attachment to those rules and you aren't willing to let them go, despite GW demonstrating by their actions over the past four years that they aren't real rules and now confirming explicitly what we already knew.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I have literally never once used a Legends datasheet. I don't have any models which aren't represented via the current rules and couldn't tell you what is in Legends other than a few CSM mounted characters. I have no real feelings about Legends one way or the other, I just don't like it when people present shoddy arguments as inviolable fact.

True or false: The only rules statements currently available from GW about the Legends datasheet state that they are legal? FYI I'll assume that if you refuse to answer or continue to point to text no longer published by GW, you accept that the current rules as published are that Legends datasheets are legal.

Aelyn wrote:
I'm not trying to say that you faked them, the point is that there is no way for someone to find that independently. If someone was given a model in Legends and wanted to know how to use it, how could they possibly determine whether it's illegal based on text which isn't available via any official source any longer? How can we know that the position as stated was made by the rules team, as opposed to a person who looks after the webstore and doesn't really know about Legends? If it was made by the rules team, how do we know that the quote is representative of the current GW position and hasn't been rolled back like Armour of Contempt was?

I admit that GW could and should be clearer about it but, once again, the explicit statement was merely confirmation of what we already knew. For anyone but the stubborn minority legends rules were already no longer part of the game as it was obvious that they were obsolete content and no longer supported. The scenario is really no different from the fact that GW doesn't explicitly state that a new version of a codex replaces and invalidates the old one, and a newbie could find a copy of the old codex at a used book store and buy it thinking it is valid rules. The only difference is that legends rules have this weird emotional attachment from certain people, while old codices don't.

As for the "lack of actions regarding Legends", it's already been cited that there were updates made, in the form of CSM datasheets being added, within the last 12 months. That hardly implies that GW have forgotten about them.

A minor update which did not fix any of the existing rules, it only added some new datasheets in response to complaints about a couple of units being removed from the codex. Dumping a couple more things into the trash can isn't a real update and doesn't change the fact that none of the other stuff has been updated in years, despite most of it being incompatible with the current game and full of non-functional rules.

True or false: The only rules statements currently available from GW about the Legends datasheet state that they are legal?

True, but that statement is from obsolete material and directly contradicts GW's actions involving the material in question, along with directly contradicting more recent statements about it. Failure to clean up and remove old pages from the website does not mean those obsolete pages should be considered the final authority on the subject. Nor does the fact that the more recent statements were made in a temporary medium change the fact that they were made, or that they were explicit confirmation of what we already knew.

Sigh....

This is the fourth time they've had the opportunity to tweak the Authority of the Inquisition.

The need to add: Imperial transports can be added to <Ordo> detachments.

So simple.

Better would be: Imperial transports from any <Ordo>'s chamber militant can be added to that <Ordo>'s detachments.

But that is more complex, so I would be fine with the first, and far simpler option.

PenitentJake wrote:
So simple.

Shrug. That's what you get when you aren't considered a real army and only get rules to get people to stop complaining. Did you really expect otherwise?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
The scenario is really no different from the fact that GW doesn't explicitly state that a new version of a codex replaces and invalidates the old one, and a newbie could find a copy of the old codex at a used book store and buy it thinking it is valid rules. The only difference is that legends rules have this weird emotional attachment from certain people, while old codices don't.

No, the difference is that there is an explicit statement on GW's site right now stating that they are legal, and the old codexes can no longer be obtained first hand while the Legends datasheets can.

True or false: The only rules statements currently available from GW about the Legends datasheet state that they are legal?

True

Thank you. That's all we needed.

but that statement is from obsolete material and directly contradicts GW's actions involving the material in question, along with directly contradicting more recent statements about it. Failure to clean up and remove old pages from the website does not mean those obsolete pages should be considered the final authority on the subject. Nor does the fact that the more recent statements were made in a temporary medium change the fact that they were made, or that they were explicit confirmation of what we already knew.

An old page which was updated in July last year and didn't have any of the text about them being legal removed. Tell me - when exactly was the quote from the Krieg Grenadier MTO published? For all I know, it was superseded by the CSM update.

Look, I agree that Legends is where datasheets are put when GW doesn't support them. I agree that if we ever have another rules upheaval on the level of 7th>8th, there's a good chance the Legends sheets won't be ported. I agree that they're not considered when it comes to balance.

But the key point is that as of right now, they are legal for use in 40K. There is no evidence available that the material is obsolete. If you want to house rule that they are not allowed, that's absolutely fine, but that doesn't change the fact that they are explicitly legal.

Now can we get back to the actual topic?

Aelyn wrote:
Tell me - when exactly was the quote from the Krieg Grenadier MTO published?

About two weeks ago. Which makes it the most recent statement by GW on the subject.

There is no evidence available that the material is obsolete.

Other than the fact that the rules are no longer compatible (just like an old codex) with the current game, have not been updated in years, and have been explicitly excluded from being valid rules. Sorry, but citing the fact that GW hasn't technically deleted an obsolete page yet is RAW nitpicking.

...and taking one obscure source as gospel, that both wasn't a rules document and isn't currently available for anyone to access , isn't a worse example of n-RAW nitpicking?

 Dysartes wrote:
...and taking one obscure source as gospel, that both wasn't a rules document and isn't currently available for anyone to access , isn't a worse example of n-RAW nitpicking?

Not when that RAW aligns very well with RAI and the "obscure source" is merely confirmation of what we already knew. The only reason the recent statements are even relevant is that, unlike with obsolete codices, there are some people still deeply in denial about legends rules not being real rules and continuing to post misleading information about their validity.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

There is no evidence available that the material is obsolete.

Other than the fact that the rules are no longer compatible (just like an old codex) with the current game, have not been updated in years, and have been explicitly excluded from being valid rules. Sorry, but citing the fact that GW hasn't technically deleted an obsolete page yet is RAW nitpicking.

The point is there is nothing to say that the page is obsolete! It's not been deleted and it's still in use, as evidenced by the fact that it's been updated within the past 12 months - more recently than some of the current FAQs.

Here, let me give a specific example to show you what I mean. I'll avoid the CSM Legends as apparently you don't count that PDF as relevant (I don't quite see why), so let's use one published in 2019 - let's go with the Space Wolves because that's near the top of the page:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/0c0ed4ed.pdf

Let's take a specific datasheet, even. I scrolled to the middle of the document to pick one relatively at random, and landed on the "Wolf Guard Battle Leader on Bike".

In what way is that datasheet not compatible with the current rules?

How have GW explicitly excluded this datasheet, or for that matter the Legends PDF it comes from, from being valid rules?

You've pointed to a single source as evidence that it's not valid - a statement on a product description saying that a few specific models don't have rules. But as several people have already pointed out, GW is not a singular monolithic entity. It has departments, and sometimes the webstore department or the community article department makes a mistake.

We have no way of knowing if that sentence was actually intended to be a statement from the Rules Team that "As of now, these models - and, by extension, all Legends datasheets - are officially illegal for use in games of Warhammer 40,000". It's extremely likely that it was simply an error by whoever wrote the copy for the MTO product page - we can't say for sure, but Occam's Razor indicates that's the most likely explanation. What matters is the actual rules published, and those include the Legends PDFs. And as of right now, as you have agreed, the only statements currently available from GW on the Legends datasheets is that they are legal.

To claim that this is RAW nitpicking, and to then claim that a few brief sentences in the product description of a few MTO models which say that those models don't have rules - sentences which aren't even on GW's site any more - is evidence that every single Legends datasheet is illegal, is absurd and unsupported.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Your previous thread where you claimed that was literally closed because you were wrong and GW still off

It was closed, that doesn't mean it was wrong

No, but the fact that it was wrong does mean that it was wrong. It was a statement in a marketing piece to retailers that was factually incorrect, as evidenced by the fact that the rules are still available. Move on.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
...and taking one obscure source as gospel, that both wasn't a rules document and isn't currently available for anyone to access , isn't a worse example of n-RAW nitpicking?

There are some people still [...] continuing to post misleading information about their validity.

FTFY. Seriously. Which upload seems like the wrong one? One that is online since the start of the Edition and has been updated constantly whenever a relevant Codex was released - or - the one that was online for one week and has been taken down afterwards.
The one who wrote the text for the MTO was wrong but GW just didn't care to correct it because they knew it wouldn't matter one week later. And anyone searching for the rules of the three options (not to speak of any other legend rule that wasn't mentioned at all) would find them in the legends document on the current page.

PenitentJake wrote:
Sigh....

This is the fourth time they've had the opportunity to tweak the Authority of the Inquisition.

The need to add: Imperial transports can be added to <Ordo> detachments.

So simple.

Better would be: Imperial transports from any <Ordo>'s chamber militant can be added to that <Ordo>'s detachments.

But that is more complex, so I would be fine with the first, and far simpler option.

Not as bad as this little gem they failed to correct:

IMPERIAL NAVY BREACHERS wrote:Shipborne Personnel: If your army is Battle-forged, this unit cannot be used as a compulsory selection in a Detachment (e.g. as the only Troops unit in a Patrol Detachment), unless that Detachment is a Navis Imperialis Detachment.

CARTOGRAPHICA ROGUE TRADER wrote:Master and Commander: If your army is Battle-forged, you can include a maximum of one Cartographica Rogue Trader model in each Detachment in your army. This model cannot be taken in a compulsory Battlefield Role slot.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is still impossible to build a Navis Imperialis Detachment because the CRT cannot be your compulsory HQ choice

I think it just sucks they struggle with basic stuff like this, there system is so broken even they cannot keep up with it.

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is still impossible to build a Navis Imperialis Detachment because the CRT cannot be your compulsory HQ choice

Strictly speaking 'it is impossible to use pure NAVIS IMPERIALIS for anything other than boarding actions.'

They get a free pass there (which is where I guess it's most appropriate to see them) as the HQ is not compulsory. I completely agree its daft that you can't field a pure navy force in a bigger game, though.

What a lazy job done again, they have copy and pasted as usual but did take the time to remove the warlord traits, relics and stratagems!

Hopefully I've just missed them and they are hidden somewhere that I haven't noticed.

Taking the strats away from the assassins makes them completely pointless and that's what made them marginally usable.
Removing even more of the inquisition options is just further kicking when they are down.

locarno24 wrote:

That's right, ladies and gentlemen. It is still impossible to build a Navis Imperialis Detachment because the CRT cannot be your compulsory HQ choice

Strictly speaking 'it is impossible to use pure NAVIS IMPERIALIS for anything other than boarding actions.'

They get a free pass there (which is where I guess it's most appropriate to see them) as the HQ is not compulsory. I completely agree its daft that you can't field a pure navy force in a bigger game, though.

The HQ slot is only not compulsory for Knights.

Can't you take the Assassin as the first and thus No Slot Agent, then an Inquisitor as the Compulsory, the Rogue Trader as an extra, and then fill with Navis Imperialis?

You're not limited to One Agent, its just the first one is slot free:

If your army is Battle-forged, you can include one Agent of
the Imperium unit in each Imperium (excluding Fallen units)
Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade and Arks of Omen
Detachment in your army without those units taking up
Battlefield Role slots in those Detachments.

So you take two to get the Compulsory Slot Filled(I'd even accept that the first one doesn't HAVE to be Slot Free just CAN be slot free), The Rogue Trader now gets in, And you're still a NAVIS detachment able to load up on Breachers and Armsmen. Can't take any DAEMONHOST but the other two Inquisition Elites are still Agents Of The Imperium.

I feel I must be missing something but I was looking at creating a Navis Boarding Patrol (local group happy for RT to be a HQ) and I noticed a couple of inconsistencies.

The first is points values which are not in the Field Manual but are listed on the individual sheets. However the individual sheets have been superseded by the new Agents of the Imperium PDF that has no points. So the only points source is potentially out of date? I don't think it makes much difference but odd none the less.

The other is the Canid in the Voidsmen at Arms. It seems to have a points cost and even doubles the PL if taken by bumping the team over 5 models. However it doesn't actually do anything, there is no attack, special action or buff that it enables. What does it do?

 WisdomLS wrote:
What a lazy job done again, they have copy and pasted as usual but did take the time to remove the warlord traits, relics and stratagems!

Hopefully I've just missed them and they are hidden somewhere that I haven't noticed.

Taking the strats away from the assassins makes them completely pointless and that's what made them marginally usable.
Removing even more of the inquisition options is just further kicking when they are down.

Taking the strats was definitely problematic, and the Navis issue is a big deal... and there is more they could have done besides. I am not applauding this effort, but I do need to say that making Imperial Agent a faction keyword was a huge change- it is now possible for the first time since 8th to legally field an Inquisition patrol.

PenitentJake wrote:
it is now possible for the first time since 8th to legally field an Inquisition patrol.

How? Inquisitors are HQs and all the other inquisition units are elites, you have no troops to fill the mandatory slot. And yeah, you could take breachers or voidsmen but those aren't inquisition units, it's no different from taking an inquisitor in a space marine army and calling it an "inquisition detachment".

Did you even look at the new rules?

 Blndmage wrote:
Did you even look at the new rules?

What about them?

Inquisitors are HQs.
Jokaero Weaponsmiths are elites.
Acolytes are elites.
Daemonhosts are elites.

How do you make a legal patrol detachment from those units?

Voidsmen, breaches, and assassins, along with the inquisition units you listed, all have the AGENTS OF THE IMPERIUM faction keywords.

Try reading the rules being discussed.

 Blndmage wrote:
Voidsmen, breaches, and assassins

Are not inquisition units.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Voidsmen, breaches, and assassins

Are not inquisition units.

True, they're Agents of the Imperium.

 Blndmage wrote:
True, they're Agents of the Imperium.

Precisely. PenitentJake said "inquisition patrol" not "AGENTS OF THE IMPERIUM patrol", which this quarter-assed update does not allow.

Or, as you so nicely put it, try reading the rules being discussed.

It’d be an Inquisition Patrol by the way keywords and Agents work.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’d be an Inquisition Patrol by the way keywords and Agents work.

Only in the very strictest RAW sense, a rule that has no actual in-game effect, and only if you assume that when Agents of the Imperium says that you may include the unit without it taking up any slots it is not mandatory that it not take up any slots. But in a lore sense, which I know PenitentJake cares very much about, it is not a true inquisition patrol because it is a mixed-faction force with non-inquisition units included to fill a mandatory slot, just like you had to do before this quarter-assed update.

OMG! You can't build an Agents of the Imperium Patrol because the rules are so up.

HQ: The compulsory HQ choice cannot be a Cartographica Rogue Trader due to the Master and Commander ability. Therefore it must be an Inquisitor or an Officio Assassinorum unit.

Troop: The compulsory Troop cannot be Imperial Navy Breachers and Voidsmen-At-Arms, the only Agents of the Imperium Troops choices. Both units have the Shipborne Troops ability that prevent them from being a compulsory Troops choice in a detachment unless it is an Navis Imperialis detachment, which it can't be because see HQ above.

 alextroy wrote:
OMG! You can't build an Agents of the Imperium Patrol because the rules are so up.

HQ: The compulsory HQ choice cannot be a Cartographica Rogue Trader due to the Master and Commander ability. Therefore it must be an Inquisitor or an Officio Assassinorum unit.

Troop: The compulsory Troop cannot be Imperial Navy Breachers and Voidsmen-At-Arms, the only Agents of the Imperium Troops choices. Both units have the Shipborne Troops ability that prevent them from being a compulsory Troops choice in a detachment unless it is an Navis Imperialis detachment, which it can't be because see HQ above.

Yep. The only way to do it is to assume that the Agents of the Imperium rule means that you can take the unit without filling a slot but are not required to. If that's the case you can take an assassin or inquisitor using the Agents of the Imperium rule to fill the mandatory HQ slot without violating faction purity rules, then fill your remaining slots with NAVIS IMPERIALIS units. Technically all AGENTS OF THE IMPERIUM units, not meaningfully different from adding an inquisitor to a patrol detachment with a captain and some tactical marines.

Aelyn wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

There is no evidence available that the material is obsolete.

Other than the fact that the rules are no longer compatible (just like an old codex) with the current game, have not been updated in years, and have been explicitly excluded from being valid rules. Sorry, but citing the fact that GW hasn't technically deleted an obsolete page yet is RAW nitpicking.

The point is there is nothing to say that the page is obsolete! It's not been deleted and it's still in use, as evidenced by the fact that it's been updated within the past 12 months - more recently than some of the current FAQs.

Here, let me give a specific example to show you what I mean. I'll avoid the CSM Legends as apparently you don't count that PDF as relevant (I don't quite see why), so let's use one published in 2019 - let's go with the Space Wolves because that's near the top of the page:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/0c0ed4ed.pdf

Let's take a specific datasheet, even. I scrolled to the middle of the document to pick one relatively at random, and landed on the "Wolf Guard Battle Leader on Bike".

In what way is that datasheet not compatible with the current rules?

*snip to avoid wall of text*

No, it's fair to say that legends are not valid for matched play. Given your example of the Wolf Guard Battle Leader, we look at the abilities section and see the following line: "And They Shall Know No Fear (see Codex: Space Wolves)". Codex: Space Wolves is no longer a valid document - infact there is no current Codex: Space Wolves. The datasheet is now nonsense because the rules it references have moved on and the datasheet hasn't been updated to remain compatible. I think it would be more challenging to find a datasheet that doesn't have these types of compatibility issues.

JakeSiren wrote:
I think it would be more challenging to find a datasheet that doesn't have these types of compatibility issues.

There's a few. Some of them are so simple (usually to the point of uselessness) that there's nothing to break. For example, the Elysian Sniper Squad is just a unit of three models with sniper rifles, lasguns, and frag grenades. No special rules, no references to the codex, just a very basic stat line. It doesn't have the REGIMENTAL keyword so it doesn't get any faction bonuses, it doesn't have PLATOON so it can't receive orders, and you'd never want to take it from a list optimization point of view. But it's technically a functional unit that can be put into the game exactly as written and not break anything.

The general point stands though, that most of them are non-functional rules. And I'd even add that they're non-functional outside of matched play. In Crusade or open play you still have to house rule your own version of the game if you want to use them, it's just more likely outside of matched play that "what is legal" is something the players are willing to ignore in favor of making up their own rules.

Reckon these new agents datasheets will get faq'd if this is the intention and you find you can't do it legally(from the article):

'The document also moves AGENTS OF THE IMPERIUM to the Faction keyword box – for those looking to field an entire Detachment of special agents. If you want to build a Boarding Patrol of Inquisitorial agents or Navy privateers, you can do that too – free rules are available in the Boarding Actions Mustering Dataslate.'

Edited: woops, nope i'm wrong, thats for Boarding actions only.

Edited again rules hard: you can make an arc of omens Agents of the Imperium detachment right? and use all those datasheets. Or make an Agents of the Imperium Patrol detachment with the Battle Brothers rules. So what's the problem? Is it just 'cos it's not called an Inquisition detachment?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
I think it would be more challenging to find a datasheet that doesn't have these types of compatibility issues.

There's a few. Some of them are so simple (usually to the point of uselessness) that there's nothing to break. For example, the Elysian Sniper Squad is just a unit of three models with sniper rifles, lasguns, and frag grenades. No special rules, no references to the codex, just a very basic stat line. It doesn't have the REGIMENTAL keyword so it doesn't get any faction bonuses, it doesn't have PLATOON so it can't receive orders, and you'd never want to take it from a list optimization point of view. But it's technically a functional unit that can be put into the game exactly as written and not break anything.

The general point stands though, that most of them are non-functional rules. And I'd even add that they're non-functional outside of matched play. In Crusade or open play you still have to house rule your own version of the game if you want to use them, it's just more likely outside of matched play that "what is legal" is something the players are willing to ignore in favor of making up their own rules.

Open Play doesn't need detachments to work. Stratagems, CPs, and detachments themselves are actually in the "Advanced Rules" section of the corebook.

You can run any combination of them without worry, as there are no compulsory slots.

My word what a terrible update. Yes you can use your models without a rules lawyer complaining. No you will not have much luck with them. Poor old assassins. Have all their strats gone then?

Yeah, wow. I guess I wanted Inquisition to work so much that I didn't see Shipborne wrecking IA Detachments, but it does.

What a mess.

Seems like in some ways getting updated was actively worse for Inquisition.

Ignoring a line about an invalid supplement was an easier conversation for Inquisition players than trying to make and employ armies with these rules.

 Blndmage wrote:
Open Play doesn't need detachments to work. Stratagems, CPs, and detachments themselves are actually in the "Advanced Rules" section of the corebook.

You can run any combination of them without worry, as there are no compulsory slots.

I'm not sure what your Open Play™ evangelizing has to do with anything here?

PenitentJake specifically mentioned an inquisition patrol detachment and how the new update supposedly now allows one (it doesn't) so "you don't have to use detachments" isn't relevant.

The post of mine you quoted is talking about rule function issues that have nothing to do with detachments. How does using Open Play and ignoring stratagems/detachments/etc resolve the problem that a Salamander tank's smoke launcher rule says "see Codex: Astra Militarum page XX", a reference to a book which is no longer valid and a rule which no longer exists? How does it resolve the problem that Tau units still have the old markerlight rules with a weapon profile and not the version in the current codex?

I wonder if the people defending GW here think GW will see it and give them some free models.

Is it just the shipbourne rule that's a problem? or am I not seeing something else?

Well, sort of. If you are running Arks of Omen and you want to run an Agent of the Imperium, it has to be in the Arks detachment or in an Aux Support detachment. The Battle Brothers rule mentions an Agents of the Imperium patrol detachment, but there is no legal way to build one under the provided rules due to shipbourne.

At least that's how I understand it.

JakeSiren wrote:
Well, sort of. If you are running Arks of Omen and you want to run an Agent of the Imperium, it has to be in the Arks detachment or in an Aux Support detachment. The Battle Brothers rule mentions an Agents of the Imperium patrol detachment, but there is no legal way to build one under the provided rules due to shipbourne.

At least that's how I understand it.

I agree with you, This seems like a bug that might be fixed with the release of the Arbites units. I heard they will be core units and this would address this issue directly.

 PaddyMick wrote:
Is it just the shipbourne rule that's a problem? or am I not seeing something else?

Partly. There are two separate issues here:

It seems to be intended to be possible to build an all NAVIS IMPERIALIS (rogue traders and navy crew) detachment but GW screwed up the execution in this quarter-assed update. "Shipborne Personnel" works fine in concept, only allowing the units to be mandatory troops in a pure NAVIS IMPERIALIS detachment, the issue is that you can't build a legal NAVIS IMPERIALIS detachment because the rogue trader has a rule which says it can't be used for a compulsory slot. What GW needed to do was change the rogue trader rule to say "except in a NAVIS IMPERIALIS detachment", allowing you to use all three units to fill mandatory slots as long as you take a pure detachment of them.

There's a separate issue that there are no INQUISITION troops units, which makes it impossible to build a pure inquisition detachment. You'll always have to take some non-inquisition unit(s) and that sucks for thematic reasons. What GW needed to do was move acolytes to troops, or even give them a rule that makes them troops in a pure INQUISITION detachment if they're concerned about non-inquisition forces taking them as cheap obsec fodder.

The issue of being unable to build an AGENTS OF THE IMPERIUM detachment is a non-issue. Lore-wise those units are not a single coherent force and there's no reason to take a mixed detachment of them. Inquisition and rogue trader forces need to be separate options, not dumped into a single "anything we don't bother to make a real codex for" pseudo-faction.

Thanks Aecus, think I get it now. Hopefully it gets FAQ'd.

Personally i'd like to build a Boarding Actions patrol with an Inquisitor, a handful of space marines, and some regular human dudes of some stripe, but i don't know if that will be possible.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’d be an Inquisition Patrol by the way keywords and Agents work.

It can be either/or. If you ignore the NAVIS faction and fill with Inquisitors, Assassins, and Inquisition Elites in an AOO Det, its Inquisition. If you ignore the INQUISITION faction and fill with NAVIS it becomes a NAVIS det.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’d be an Inquisition Patrol by the way keywords and Agents work.

It can be either/or. If you ignore the NAVIS faction and fill with Inquisitors, Assassins, and Inquisition Elites in an AOO Det, its Inquisition. If you ignore the INQUISITION faction and fill with NAVIS it becomes a NAVIS det.

How do you make it a Navis detachment when the rules for the HQ state that they can't be used to fill the compulsory slots?
Who's your Navis HQ?

ccs wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’d be an Inquisition Patrol by the way keywords and Agents work.

It can be either/or. If you ignore the NAVIS faction and fill with Inquisitors, Assassins, and Inquisition Elites in an AOO Det, its Inquisition. If you ignore the INQUISITION faction and fill with NAVIS it becomes a NAVIS det.

How do you make it a Navis detachment when the rules for the HQ state that they can't be used to fill the compulsory slots?
Who's your Navis HQ?

The Cartographer in the Non-Compulsory slot.

You CAN take one Inquisitor/Assassin without it taking a slot. Sounds like you CAN take one in a slot too - failing that you can take one of each, which still leaves a non-compulsory slot. I'm not even sure you need a NAVIS HQ in a NAVIS Det - but you'd most likely want one anyway. If you take an Assassin and an Inquisitor in a Space Marine Det, it's still a Space Marine Det.

I do think some polite feedback regarding the issues with this PDF to their 40k FAQ mailbox might be worthwhile - it can't hurt, at the very least.

Don't know if it'd bring Warlord Traits, Relics or Stratagems back - though you could ask - but they might fix the bits that just don't seem to work at all right now.

 Dysartes wrote:
I do think some polite feedback regarding the issues with this PDF to their 40k FAQ mailbox might be worthwhile - it can't hurt, at the very least.

Don't know if it'd bring Warlord Traits, Relics or Stratagems back - though you could ask - but they might fix the bits that just don't seem to work at all right now.

Yep, just did so. Pointed out the conflict with the Navis Imperialis rules, as well as a small missive on the absolute state of the Agents/Inqusition as a faction. The absolute decay they're in, and encouraging them to at least stop and play a couple test games with them and see how poorly they preform.

Breton wrote:

ccs wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’d be an Inquisition Patrol by the way keywords and Agents work.

It can be either/or. If you ignore the NAVIS faction and fill with Inquisitors, Assassins, and Inquisition Elites in an AOO Det, its Inquisition. If you ignore the INQUISITION faction and fill with NAVIS it becomes a NAVIS det.

How do you make it a Navis detachment when the rules for the HQ state that they can't be used to fill the compulsory slots?
Who's your Navis HQ?

The Cartographer in the Non-Compulsory slot.

You CAN take one Inquisitor/Assassin without it taking a slot. Sounds like you CAN take one in a slot too - failing that you can take one of each, which still leaves a non-compulsory slot. I'm not even sure you need a NAVIS HQ in a NAVIS Det - but you'd most likely want one anyway. If you take an Assassin and an Inquisitor in a Space Marine Det, it's still a Space Marine Det.

If the Inquistor it taken as the Compulsory HQ Agent of the Imperium doesn’t allow you to ignore him when checking detachment faction. Thus you are not a Navis detachment and can’t fill compulsory Troops slots.

Like others have said, the rules in the PDF are a mess.

 alextroy wrote:
If the Inquistor it taken as the Compulsory HQ Agent of the Imperium doesn’t allow you to ignore him when checking detachment faction. Thus you are not a Navis detachment and can’t fill compulsory Troops slots.

Like others have said, the rules in the PDF are a mess.

AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM
If your army is Battle-forged, you can include one Agent of
the Imperium unit in each Imperium (excluding Fallen units)
Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade and Arks of Omen
Detachment in your army without those units taking up
Battlefield Role slots in those Detachments.

Part I - Can be taken without a slot

The inclusion of an Agent of the Imperium unit does not prevent other units
from their Detachment benefiting from Detachment abilities
(e.g. Chapter Tactics), and it does not prevent other units from
your army benefiting from abilities that require every model
in your army to have that ability (e.g. Combat Doctrines).
An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol, Boarding
Patrol, Battalion, Brigade or Arks of Omen Detachment in this
manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that
Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common
(e.g. in a matched play game), and when determining your
Army Faction.

Part II - Including an Agent of the Imperium does not need shared keywords - so you could take one with Aeldari or Nids etc. strangely - and they don't change the faction/Det type. Assassin and Inquisitor as the only HQ in an otherwise Space Marine border patrol is still a Space Marine Border Patrol Inquisitor Agents (i.e. 3 Acolytes and Inquisitor/Assassin) can be an Inquisition Det, or if it has all something else can be an all something else Det.

An Agent of the Imperium unit can never be included in a
Brood Brothers Detachment

AGENT OF THE IMPERIUM
If your army is Battle-forged, you can include one Agent of
the Imperium unit in each Imperium (excluding Fallen units)
Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade and Arks of Omen
Detachment in your army without those units taking up
Battlefield Role slots in those Detachments.

Part I - Can be taken without a slot

The inclusion of an Agent of the Imperium unit does not prevent other units from their Detachment benefiting from Detachment abilities
(e.g. Chapter Tactics), and it does not prevent other units from
your army benefiting from abilities that require every model
in your army to have that ability (e.g. Combat Doctrines).

Part 2 - doesn’t prevent other units in detachment from from gaining detachment abilities or army abilities.

An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade or Arks of Omen Detachment in this manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. in a matched play game), and when determining your Army Faction.

Part 3 - this only applies when you take an Agent of the Imperium unit in an applicable Imperium detachment without taking a Battlefield Role slot. Thus including one in an Agents of the Imperium slot this way still requires inclusion of another HQ unit to fill the compulsory HQ slot for the detachment to be an Navis detachment. As already noted, there is no Navis HQ to take that slot.

 alextroy wrote:

An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade or Arks of Omen Detachment in this manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. in a matched play game), and when determining your Army Faction.

Part 3 - this only applies when you take an Agent of the Imperium unit in an applicable Imperium detachment without taking a Battlefield Role slot. Thus including one in an Agents of the Imperium slot this way still requires inclusion of another HQ unit to fill the compulsory HQ slot for the detachment to be an Navis detachment. As already noted, there is no Navis HQ to take that slot.

Yep, I pointed that out - you'd have to include an Inquisitor/Assassin or both - but I can kind of get behind the fluff on that one - the Inquisitor has seconded/drafted the ship crew etc.

An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade or Arks of Omen Detachment in this manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common (e.g. in a matched play game), and when determining your Army Faction.

Army faction is not Detachment faction I would guess? The Army faction described on BRB 245 I think? Its mostly a double up of the bespoke rules above, but maybe there's a niche case for something?

Ironically by Breton's reading ("army faction being different from detachment faction") then it still doesn't work, because agents of the imperium only ignores when checking for Army faction. It does not ignore when checking for detachment faction.

Lol. What a mess.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically by Breton's reading ("army faction being different from detachment faction") then it still doesn't work, because agents of the imperium only ignores when checking for Army faction. It does not ignore when checking for detachment faction.

Lol. What a mess.

No, the first part specifically allows it -

An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol, Boarding
Patrol, Battalion, Brigade or Arks of Omen Detachment in this
manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that
Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common

Automatically Appended Next Post:
To do this step by step:
All Units in a detachment must share a Faction Keyword.
(skipped by "An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol....is ignored for any rules that state all units from that
Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common"
All detachments in your army must share one Faction Keyword.
skipped by "An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol... and when determining your Army Faction."

Don't get me wrong, the rules are poorly worded, and result in some rather silly possibilties (Nids/Chaos forces with an Inquisition/NAVIS detachment for example) - but you can in theory make the NAVIS detachment if you jump through enough hoops and assume the same internal logic applied to Adeptus Astartes and/or CHAPTER Dets (and the others that are actually defined - technically there's no way to make a NAVIS/etc Det because there's no rule defining a NAVIS/etc Det.)

And once again, you are skipping over the important part.

An Agent of the Imperium unit included in a Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade or Arks of Omen Detachment in this manner is ignored for any rules that state all units from that Detachment must have at least one Faction keyword in common

In what manner is that?

If your army is Battle-forged, you can include one Agent of the Imperium unit in each Imperium (excluding Fallen units) Patrol, Boarding Patrol, Battalion, Brigade and Arks of Omen Detachment in your army without those units taking up Battlefield Role slots in those Detachments.

So putting an Inquisitor or Assassin in your detachment in a way that prevents it from making the detachment not a Navis Imperialis detachment means it cannot fill the required HQ slot of the detachment.

You are still left unable to fill the HQ slot of a Navis Imperialis detachment because any Agent of the Imperium model that can fill the slot is not Navis Imperialis unit and does count for determining what type of detachment you have.

Breton wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the rules are poorly worded, and result in some rather silly possibilties (Nids/Chaos forces with an Inquisition/NAVIS detachment for example) - but you can in theory make the NAVIS detachment if you jump through enough hoops and assume the same internal logic applied to Adeptus Astartes and/or CHAPTER Dets (and the others that are actually defined - technically there's no way to make a NAVIS/etc Det because there's no rule defining a NAVIS/etc Det.)

I might be missing something here, but how do you think you're achieving the bit in bold, assuming the army as a whole is Battle-Forged?

 Dysartes wrote:
I might be missing something here, but how do you think you're achieving the bit in bold, assuming the army as a whole is Battle-Forged?

Inquisitors don't break faction purity. It doesn't matter though because inquisitors and navy stuff are bad so nobody wants to take them. Maybe it would be funny to play orks with an inquisitor and be able to brag that you beat your friend even though you brought an inquisitor to nerf yourself.

 Conscript #760714 wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
I might be missing something here, but how do you think you're achieving the bit in bold, assuming the army as a whole is Battle-Forged?

Inquisitors don't break faction purity. It doesn't matter though because inquisitors and navy stuff are bad so nobody wants to take them. Maybe it would be funny to play orks with an inquisitor and be able to brag that you beat your friend even though you brought an inquisitor to nerf yourself.

You may want to reread the rules again. They very clearly state that Agents of the Imperium don't break purity in IMPERIUM patrols, battalions and brigades... so certainly not ANY army, and not even ANY detachment in IMPERIUM armies.

As for the Navis situation: As someone already pointed out earlier in the thread, HQ's aren't mandatory in AoO Detachments. So you take two units of breachers and a unit of voidsmen and that IS a Navis AoO detachment. You can still include the Rogue Trader as an Navis because the detachment doesn't require an HQ, which makes any HQ slot available non-compulsory.

It's clear that GW ONLY wanted Navis Detachments to work in Boarding Action games. A shame, but I do believe that was the intent.

As for the Inquisition, PA: Pariah is the best 8th/9th list they've had- still not great, but better than any of the alternatives. It was compatible with 9th right up until the release of Octarius, so it does work with the edition. Failing that, if you've got Octarius, the only thing that's different really is the absence of the Malleus Terminator.

If you choose to use this list, or if your opponent insists on it, you're probably best with an AoO Detachment anyway- take'm as Agents, and you can use anything and everything in the dataslate- none of the units, not even troops, are mandatory, so neither Shipborn nor Master and Commander have any effect.

I want to make it clear, however, that I'm not defending GW here. This dataslate is still a tire-fire and it represents the fourth missed opportunity to get it right. It wouldn't have taken much more to do it. I'm going to hope it gets better before the end of the edition, but if it doesn't, I'll just have to build the 9th ed Agents dex that GW should have built. I don't plan in getting into the ring with 10th when it comes.

A lot could happen between now and then, but I'm certainly preparing to walk away.

PenitentJake wrote:


You may want to reread the rules again. They very clearly state that Agents of the Imperium don't break purity in IMPERIUM patrols, battalions and brigades... so certainly not ANY army, and not even ANY detachment in IMPERIUM armies.

There's nothing clear about the rules here - but yeah it does state at the top reference its an Imperium yadda yadda, then takes 3 paragraphs to get through the rest of it - then dropping the Imperium part while repeating the rest of the giant list.

As for the Navis situation: As someone already pointed out earlier in the thread, HQ's aren't mandatory in AoO Detachments. So you take two units of breachers and a unit of voidsmen and that IS a Navis AoO detachment. You can still include the Rogue Trader as an Navis because the detachment doesn't require an HQ, which makes any HQ slot available non-compulsory.

Now you need to reread the rules again the 1st HQ slot is compulsory UNLESS Knights (which don't have any)

It's clear that GW ONLY wanted Navis Detachments to work in Boarding Action games. A shame, but I do believe that was the intent.

As for the Inquisition, PA: Pariah is the best 8th/9th list they've had- still not great, but better than any of the alternatives. It was compatible with 9th right up until the release of Octarius, so it does work with the edition. Failing that, if you've got Octarius, the only thing that's different really is the absence of the Malleus Terminator.

If you choose to use this list, or if your opponent insists on it, you're probably best with an AoO Detachment anyway- take'm as Agents, and you can use anything and everything in the dataslate- none of the units, not even troops, are mandatory, so neither Shipborn nor Master and Commander have any effect.

You're missing the point - people want to take the NAVIS Det not the INQUISITION Det. Your Knights thing above did get me thinking about taking NAVIS in a Knights army, give up one of the big knights for a couple squads and an HQ - they still don't have ObSec, but they can climb towers and such.

I want to make it clear, however, that I'm not defending GW here. This dataslate is still a tire-fire and it represents the fourth missed opportunity to get it right. It wouldn't have taken much more to do it. I'm going to hope it gets better before the end of the edition, but if it doesn't, I'll just have to build the 9th ed Agents dex that GW should have built. I don't plan in getting into the ring with 10th when it comes.

A lot could happen between now and then, but I'm certainly preparing to walk away.

Breton wrote:
Now you need to reread the rules again the 1st HQ slot is compulsory UNLESS Knights (which don't have any)

Yeah, my bad. I don't actually have any of the Arks of Omen Books, I was getting my information from a White Dwarf, and the detachment in that issue looks nothing like the actual detachment. Sigh.... That makes just about everything I said about Navis wrong.

You're missing the point - people want to take the NAVIS Det not the INQUISITION Det. Your Knights thing above did get me thinking about taking NAVIS in a Knights army, give up one of the big knights for a couple squads and an HQ - they still don't have ObSec, but they can climb towers and such.

The Inquisition piece was a response to something that came up earlier in the conversation about using Voidsmen or Breachers as troops choices in order to create Inquisition patrol detachments- you can't do it, because the only troops options in the list are shipborn, so they can't fill the patrol's compulsory troops choice if the detachment is Imperial Agents or Inquisition. However, you can build an Imperial Agents AoO drendering any subsequent troops choices optional.etachment that includes voidsmen or breachers because you could choose elites as your non-HQ compulsory,

PenitentJake wrote:


The Inquisition piece was a response to something that came up earlier in the conversation about using Voidsmen or Breachers as troops choices in order to create Inquisition patrol detachments- you can't do it, because the only troops options in the list are shipborn, so they can't fill the patrol's compulsory troops choice if the detachment is Imperial Agents or Inquisition. However, you can build an Imperial Agents AoO drendering any subsequent troops choices optional.etachment that includes voidsmen or breachers because you could choose elites as your non-HQ compulsory,

Right, and you can do it with the Allied Patrol by using a (potentially second) Inquisitor or Assassin as the compulsory HQ, the Rogue Trader as the optional HQ, and then its still a NAVIS detachment. A lot of hoops to jump through - but it makes a sort of internal sense. They're shipboard units, they need a reason to be on the ground - an Inquisitor or an Assassin dragging them along fits the bill.

Of course this opens up other issues too - theoretically no ObSec for the NAVIS boys - Which isn't good, but not the end of the world for the niche they've carved out for NAVIS and INQUISITOR Dets. Truth be told I suspect the best use of the NAVIS or INQUISITOR stuff is supplementing a Knights Army. Give up a big knight maybe, get a couple to a few units that can now scale walls and buildings and such to secure objectives a Titanic Walker can't phsyically get to - flip side is the knight can still clear the objective so they don't need much to secure it. My idea for fixing knights was to give each Knight unit a Maintenance Crew with Welding Torches (short - 3-6" - range pistols) and a less blatantly ripped off Hydrospanners (Close Combat Weapon profile) You get 5-10 per knight, they have ObSec, and Imperial Guardsman or worse stats. They are bought as one unit, deployed at the same time but seperately and operate indepedently like SM Lieutenants and other such units.

Anyway back on topic - Its possible, but not really worth the effort I'd guess outside of a few niche cases.

Wait, can't you plug the compulsory troop slot with Spindle Drones?

 Blndmage wrote:
Wait, can't you plug the compulsory troop slot with Spindle Drones?

I don't have that PA book to know for sure (I assume its PA War of the Spider, Agents of the Imperium?)- its scheduled for obsolescence in June of 2023 though so the only datasheets we can "count on" are the ones they just gave us for free - plus they're not in the MFM just released (That I can find)

Breton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Wait, can't you plug the compulsory troop slot with Spindle Drones?

I don't have that PA book to know for sure (I assume its PA War of the Spider, Agents of the Imperium?)- its scheduled for obsolescence in June of 2023 though so the only datasheets we can "count on" are the ones they just gave us for free - plus they're not in the MFM just released (That I can find)

LoL. The whole edition is scheduled for obsolescence come June.

They're from Blackstone Fortress & can be found as Legends units.
They are the only Unaligned Troop unit in the game.
Limit 1 unit per army.

And the answer is: Yes, you can.
Assuming you & yours don't have some hangup about using Legends units of course......

ccs wrote:

Breton wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Wait, can't you plug the compulsory troop slot with Spindle Drones?

I don't have that PA book to know for sure (I assume its PA War of the Spider, Agents of the Imperium?)- its scheduled for obsolescence in June of 2023 though so the only datasheets we can "count on" are the ones they just gave us for free - plus they're not in the MFM just released (That I can find)

LoL. The whole edition is scheduled for obsolescence come June.

They're from Blackstone Fortress & can be found as Legends units.
They are the only Unaligned Troop unit in the game.
Limit 1 unit per army.

And the answer is: Yes, you can.
Assuming you & yours don't have some hangup about using Legends units of course......

And a $200 box for a unit of 4, at least some good minis that could be used otherwise. But ouch.

ccs wrote:
Assuming you & yours don't have some hangup about using Legends units of course......

What sort of reasonable person would have an issue with that, especially if you're not playing in a torunament?

 Dysartes wrote:

ccs wrote:
Assuming you & yours don't have some hangup about using Legends units of course......

What sort of reasonable person would have an issue with that, especially if you're not playing in a torunament?

The people who understand that legends rules have been squatted and aren't supposed to be used anymore and don't want to deal with having to house rule them back into the game and figure out what is going to be a balance problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Wait, can't you plug the compulsory troop slot with Spindle Drones?

Sure, if you want a completely anti-thematic list that exploits a RAW technicality with an ancient legends-only unit that most people won't allow.

In the case of the Spindel and Guardian Drones, would it not be legal to take the Two Remaining Rogue Traders, Janus Draik and Neyam Shai Murad in a Navy army since they are rogue traders and have them take up the necessary HQ choice?

 Paymaster Games wrote:
In the case of the Spindel and Guardian Drones, would it not be legal to take the Two Remaining Rogue Traders, Janus Draik and Neyam Shai Murad in a Navy army since they are rogue traders and have them take up the necessary HQ choice?

I was looking at them, there's also NITSCH’S SQUAD, from the rogue trader stuff, a Voidsmen troop.