Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mr Hyena wrote:One thing I really really REALLY wanna know.

What sort of Inquisition army player...actually uses an Inquisitor with NO retinue or power in his army? (aka the majority of the sneaky ones)

I do it all the time, the elite Inquisitor with an incinerator or other wargear is a nice flexible IC you can add to all sorts of units.

I mispoke in that line. It is clear from the rest of my post that I meant that they had been around but had not 'always been part of his IG army'.

Just replace 'the game' with 'your army'.

My bad.

Vaktathi wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:[
"Long since it has been relegated to a backburner game"? Oh you mean that they just haven't updated the books, same as Necrons.

Irrelevant, the point was that they weren't shoe-horned in for the Inquisitor game, that was pure fantasy on your part. The Inquisitor game wasn't released until nearly a decade and a half after 40k was released, and inquisitors are still largely the same now as they have been in the past in regards to their station on the battlefield and the tabletop. The point was that they've been in the game as army leaders for nearly two and a half decades and are a defining feature of tabletop Inquisitorial forces, and really don't have much to do with the Inquisitor tabletop game.

This is BS. There were no Inquisitors leading armies before the 3rd edition Codexes. In 2E and the 3E rulebook lists, Inquisitors were Agents, listed alongside electro-priests, tech-priests, confessors and assassins. There was no notion of an "Inquisitorial army". 2nd edition Sisters of Battle had zero inquisitorial flavor.

Agamemnon2 wrote:There were no Inquisitors leading armies before the 3rd edition Codexes.

Except that there were. Even Codex Imperialis says that some types of Inquisitors lead their own private armies, and that others second Imperial forces.

Agamemnon2 wrote:
This is BS. There were no Inquisitors leading armies before the 3rd edition Codexes. In 2E and the 3E rulebook lists, Inquisitors were Agents, listed alongside electro-priests, tech-priests, confessors and assassins. There was no notion of an "Inquisitorial army". 2nd edition Sisters of Battle had zero inquisitorial flavor.

My Codex Imperialis and Rogue Trader books disagree.

Lets be honest, the 2E sisters of Battle Book was in use for what, 8 months? It was a rushed book at the tail end of dying edition before a massive revamp?

It was not a rushed book, still the best source for Sororitas and Ecclesiarchy background. It wasn't useful for games for long with 3rd edition coming, that's true.

odd that i have heard 2013 too though, maybe this does have a thread of truth?

my source is not a manager, lol my manager goes to great lengths NOT to say anything to me he knows i post on here, not that i would "believe" him, he is trustworthy, he just like to mess with me lol

It's always hilarious when people pick and choose 40k fiction as the REAL 40k world and disregard the rest.

Not the mention the fact that game designers re-write the game universe all the time to make room for new units.

Back in the Good old days of 3rd edition, when all I had for my guard army was the rules listed in the rulebook i had a Space marine Chaplain in termi armour that I used as an inquisitor leading my army, because I was but a small boy and I thought how awesome is it to have a terminator leading your guard army. I also used priests in all my squads because it was cheaper than a veteran sergeant upgrade and you got an extra model and an extra leadership for your guardsmen

This thread is all sorts of wrong, nice tease. Between now and 2013?

Sorry about the title guys , never realised.

About the dates though, how precise do you expect me to be? It's unlikely to be this year what with GK, and either Necrons or the rumoured Tau. Next spring? But then what about DA or BT?

phantommaster wrote:Sorry about the title guys , never realised.

About the dates though, how precise do you expect me to be? It's unlikely to be this year what with GK, and either Necrons or the rumoured Tau. Next spring? But then what about DA or BT?

You're joking right? With those dates you are bound to be 100% correct. It's the same as saying you can expect a new space marine codex anytime between now and 2015. That is also 100% to be correct.

Anytime between now and 2013 you are 100% percent likely to see a new Necron, Sisters, Tau, BT and DA codex, if there is time for more you are 100% likely to see a new Eldar, CSM and Chaos Daemons codex.

phantommaster wrote:Sorry about the title guys , never realised.

About the dates though, how precise do you expect me to be? It's unlikely to be this year what with GK, and either Necrons or the rumoured Tau. Next spring? But then what about DA or BT?

F those other marines! I want plastics for my army. WH have precisely 3 all plastic models if you count the dedicated transports section and 1 if you don't. Thats what I say. Those guys just got a great FAQ update so they need nothing until 6th IMO.

GW just has to be willign to take a chance on it. The Sisters not seeling well is going to be self fulfilling if you don't give them any support and continue to cut back what they do have. Sisters have gotten no support since they came out with the 3rd Ed WH codex. No Apoc formations, no Planetstrike stratagems, no new models, maybe 1 or 2 articles in WD after the release, nothing for Spearhead, and almost no FW support either is what we have received. Its no wonder nobody buys any Sisters.

We already have evreything we want. I have nearly 6000 points worth of stuff and I don't want any more since its more of the same.

Kroothawk wrote:... still the best source for Sororitas and Ecclesiarchy background.

Maybe back then... but now...

Okay, agreed
I own both but haven't read Blood of Martyrs yet.

Apropos!

Cannibal wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Good riddance.
The Inquisition can get the hell off of 40k tabletop. They don't belong as anything more than an HQ/Advisor option for the Imperial Guard.

Aaaaand a couple pages later:

Kanluwen wrote: I think the Inquisition either should have been relegated to a background role in a mainline book ala the Imperial Guard or held off on, their entire background, organizational methods, etc overhauled and given their own full-sized book.

Ever notice how when someone is losing in a long argument they start to subtly change their stance untill it looks more like their opponents so they don't seem as wrong? Most of the Inquisition fans are arguing that they should get their own book. Kanluwen went from "They should be at most advisors" to "They should get their own book". Suddenly this was his stance all along and you are just misreading him.

But this is all off-topic. I'm getting realling jazzed about this new With Chunter book. I don't know how to chunt a With, but I bet it's going to be awesome!

there's a word for it.

"Trolling"

That guy does it a lot on this forum it seems. It also seems to be tolerated, if not outright sanctioned.

I really hope that the next imperial codex will be somehow related to Sisters, they have some good fluff, and fit well into the universe and i'd hate to see them go the path of the squat. And on a side note I love the new DH book, actually got a chance to talk with the guy who designed the thing, and he knows what he is doing. expect some really good stuff to come out of ffg in the future.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Maybe back then... but now...

GW does not consider what FFG (and even BL) writes as cannon. They might cherry pick a particular idea, but they only consider what they write in house to be "the real 40k".

GW just has to be willign to take a chance on it. The Sisters not seeling well is going to be self fulfilling if you don't give them any support and continue to cut back what they do have. Sisters have gotten no support since they came out with the 3rd Ed WH codex. No Apoc formations, no Planetstrike stratagems, no new models, maybe 1 or 2 articles in WD after the release, nothing for Spearhead, and almost no FW support either is what we have received. Its no wonder nobody buys any Sisters.

They are still popular - people have been asking about them much more than they have been with dark eldar.

Moopy wrote:GW does not consider what FFG (and even BL) writes as cannon. They might cherry pick a particular idea, but they only consider what they write in house to be "the real 40k".

Then why do they go over everything FFG does with a fine tooth comb?

Phototoxin wrote:
They are still popular - people have been asking about them much more than they have been with dark eldar.

I realize that. All I am saying is that GW can't expect Sisters to sell if the same minis have been in circulation since 97. Almost 14 years. Somebody buy them a clue please. Metal minis are durable even if their paintjobs aren't.

pretre wrote:Inquisitors were part of a White Dwarf preview / rules release before the DH/WH codex came out. I believe it was only a few months before the codex release. (I still have the WD downstairs.)

But before that, they were in the big black Warhammer 40,000 3rd Ed. Rule Book -- "Heroes of the Imperium Army". Page 260 if you have the rule book. Those choices (including an Inquisitor HQ) were available until the WD you mentioned came out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Agamemnon2 wrote:
This is BS. There were no Inquisitors leading armies before the 3rd edition Codexes. In 2E and the 3E rulebook lists, Inquisitors were Agents, listed alongside electro-priests, tech-priests, confessors and assassins. There was no notion of an "Inquisitorial army". 2nd edition Sisters of Battle had zero inquisitorial flavor.

Here's what page 260 of the 3rd Edition Rulebook says:

"Heroes such as Inquisitors, Missionaries, and Confessors represent mighty heroes that might lead a whole army to battle. These characters count as one of your HQ choices."

It says nothing about them not fulfilling a slot on the force organisation chart. As such, at least my army was often led by a lone inquisitor with no other HQ choices from as early as 2000 -- well before the 3rd edition codices. I really miss my Inquisitor and especially the 5 pt preachers that I added to all my squads for the Ordo Hereticus/Ecclesiarchy theme that I still try to use with my IG (the priests are gone now, though, and I am reduced to using a "counts as" for my Inquisitor).

NWansbutter wrote:

pretre wrote:Inquisitors were part of a White Dwarf preview / rules release before the DH/WH codex came out. I believe it was only a few months before the codex release. (I still have the WD downstairs.)

But before that, they were in the big black Warhammer 40,000 3rd Ed. Rule Book -- "Heroes of the Imperium Army". Page 260 if you have the rule book. Those choices (including an Inquisitor HQ) were available until the WD you mentioned came out.

Wow. I think I may have just gotten completely served. Now that you mention it, they probably were in there since all the armies were in the back. I'm going to have to check that out when I get home.

I retract my previous statements since they have always been an option. Although they are still an option right now (C: WH) and I know at least one guy who uses a Primaris as his 'Inq' in his guard army.

Thanks, NWansbutter!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Moopy wrote:GW does not consider what FFG (and even BL) writes as cannon. They might cherry pick a particular idea, but they only consider what they write in house to be "the real 40k".

Then why do they go over everything FFG does with a fine tooth comb?

Because they don't want them "screwing up" existing cannon or going in a direction that the GW guys can't stand. However, that doesn't mean they're actually going to use most or any of it.

Or, more realistically, GW are very controlling with their IP and the guys at FFG have to ensure that theirs matches what GW is either doing or has planned.

That too.

pretre wrote: Although they are still an option right now (C: WH) and I know at least one guy who uses a Primaris as his 'Inq' in his guard army.

Yeah, that's true -- as mentioned I use Straken for my Inquisitor now. Although I had forgotten about C:WH because I've been assuming all along that they are going to come out with some FAQ in the April White Dwarf officially taking away the ally abilities. But maybe not, in which case I think that a Witch Hunter Lord Inquisitor with max HTH retine (3x crusaders, 3x acolytes, 2x chirurgeons) might be better than Straken since the retinue can at least dish out a bit of pain. Plus two chirurgeons beat the heck out of an IG medic for 6 points less.

All I know is that when I actually got to look at C:GK, I had a very bad feeling for what implications it could have for my WH Inquisition. Please don't let Matt Ward anywhere near whatever the new WH/SoB codex is going to be.

Evil Lamp 6 wrote:All I know is that when I actually got to look at C:GK, I had a very bad feeling for what implications it could have for my WH Inquisition. Please don't let Matt Ward anywhere near whatever the new WH/SoB codex is going to be.

I agree with this statement.