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.

Yep, I had that one.

This thread is still open? So unDakka...

This thread is getting weird. I want an adult.

So all this back and forth and the feeling that people seem to pay attention to my points more when I write them as an article led to me writing them up an article: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2013/11/editorial-codex-inquisition-what.html

It's not me defending what happened, it's just my thoughts on what may have gotten us what we got.

 pretre wrote:
Check my post history, I posted one a while back. (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/560383/6255061.page#6255061) ClockworkZion did one on his blog as well.

Thanks! Looks neat. If it's how you and ClockworkZion described, I think it should work pretty well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So all this back and forth and the feeling that people seem to pay attention to my points more when I write them as an article led to me writing them up an article: http://www.talkwargaming.com/2013/11/editorial-codex-inquisition-what.html

It's not me defending what happened, it's just my thoughts on what may have gotten us what we got.

and clearly this belongs in this thread.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Check my post history, I posted one a while back. (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/560383/6255061.page#6255061) ClockworkZion did one on his blog as well.

Thanks! Looks neat. If it's how you and ClockworkZion described, I think it should work pretty well.

If is as long as you like the idea of pulling a modified version of all the Inquisition stuff out of the GK codex and being able to ally the Sororitas to that as Battle Brothers.

Otherwise it's hit or miss if people seem to like it.

I was of the opinion that they shouldn't have been in the GK codex to begin with.

 Melissia wrote:
I was of the opinion that they shouldn't have been in the GK codex to begin with.

Malleus and Coteaz, sure. Even their Warband options. But the others? Yeah, they didn't really fit it properly.

Oh and the debates about Sisters and Inquisition ties are dead. Hereticus doesn't mention a chamber of militant of any kind, and it's just a general thing that Sisters work with the Inquisition (just like every other Imperium branch.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If is as long as you like the idea of pulling a modified version of all the Inquisition stuff out of the GK codex and being able to ally the Sororitas to that as Battle Brothers.

That's exactly what I like. Got my Inquisition back.

Your Inquisition perhaps.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Your Inquisition perhaps.

Yeah, you may want to sit this one out until we see if they get updated when Grey Knights do. I can't imagine you'd want to partake in this book with it costing something like 13 points to put a BS3 Guardsman on the table who pretends to be a Stormtrooper.

Has anybody pointed out yet that C:I doesn't actually let Red Hunters and Sisters be treated as Battle Brothers because of the way the =I= codex was set up? They're not part of the Sisters' Allied Detachment if taken, they're in their own detachment.

(Referring to the Forge World Space Marine Chapter Tactics PDF in case anyone's not sure what I"m talking about.)

It says that an Inquisitor has ro be present in the allied detachment, of which Inquisitors have their own inside tha same army (doesn't saythat that detachment has to be the same one as the one that either the Sisters or Red Hunters are taken in) so I'd say it works.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:
No IST

 Jadenim wrote:
2) No dedicated IST.

IST's don't exist.

Any idea why the retcon, HBMC?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Releasing rules / characters without rules used to be the place where creative hobbyists could shine. These gaps were done with a purpose, so that people could kitbash and convert and show off their own.

In that, Chapterhouse is not doing any harm to GW, who admittedly could just put out a model and be done with it (or pull the rules).

The true tragedy is that freeloaders like Chapterhouse, by sticking their greedy tentacles into any opening of others (instead of doing something creative of their own) are pissing on the creative spirit of the people in this hobby, diminishing the gaps for "making things your own" that used to be the special quality that made this hobby stand apart from other past times.

What about terrain? Used to be that everyone was encouraged to built their own, to make special terrain out of household items and sheet styrene and styrofoam balls and toothpicks and the gods know what else. But now, everything is standardized. You don't have rules for a bunker anymore, you have rules the specific bunker model GW sells. Yet the business of making wargames terrain existed for a long time before GW suddenly decided to take this step. No, the problem is that GW has no use for creativity, it doesn't sell.

 Zweischneid wrote:
But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).

Two things:

1) As already pointed out, your use of language is fundamentally dishonest, a trend you seem dead set to adhere to with a zealot-like passionate intensity. The sooner you leave or desist, the better.

2) Boo-hoo, cry me a river. Why is it that Games Workshop's stalwart defenders are both the overwhelming majority (when it comes to pushing their drek on everyone else) and the persecuted minority (when it comes to anyone else pushing back)? I ask merely for information.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:


2) Boo-hoo, cry me a river. Why is it that Games Workshop's stalwart defenders are both the overwhelming majority (when it comes to pushing their drek on everyone else) and the persecuted minority (when it comes to anyone else pushing back)? I ask merely for information.

Stalwart defender? I've written my share of rants and critical posts about Games Workshop stuff. How does pointing out the wrong-doings of other people and companies make me a defender of Games Workshop?

Really, I think the problem on Dakka is too often that people don't measure other companies by the same benchmark they use to bash Games Workshop. GW is getting heat in just about every thread here - often deservedly - but very little criticism is spared for other companies doing the same things (pricing, release-schedule, product quality, etc.., you name it).

And yes, it was only a civil court case against Chapterhouse. They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, no less so just because some slimy lawyer got them off with less than they deserve.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

1) As already pointed out, your use of language is fundamentally dishonest, a trend you seem dead set to adhere to with a zealot-like passionate intensity. The sooner you leave or desist, the better.
.

I could say the same for 98% of the Codex: Inquisition bashing going on here. Does the Codex deserve criticism? Perhaps. It might be a bad product deserving (constructive) criticism. But the jaded and agitating rants going on here for the most part aren't it.

I agree that other companies deserve more loathing and distrust, but wielding hyperbolic slanders like the nunchucks of outrage will act contrary to your purpose, being more far likely to swing the blunt club of inaccurate statements directly at the forehead of your credibility.

 Zweischneid wrote:
And yes, it was only a civil court case against Chapterhouse. They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, no less so just because some slimy lawyer got them off with less than they deserve.

Them earning your personal censure does not mean it was criminal.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
I agree that other companies deserve more loathing and distrust, but wielding hyperbolic slanders like the nunchucks of outrage will act contrary to your purpose, being more far likely to swing the blunt club of inaccurate statements directly at the forehead of your credibility.

How does it further my credibility if I pre-censor my opinions in the name of sheepish GW(only)-bashing Dakka-conformity? If you despise plurality of opinions... don't go to internet forums!

 Agamemnon2 wrote:


Them earning your personal censure does not mean it was criminal.

If calling theft a crime is "personal censure" unique to my person, then so be it.

 Zweischneid wrote:
They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .

This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!

 ClockworkZion wrote:
If is as long as you like the idea of pulling a modified version of all the Inquisition stuff out of the GK codex and being able to ally the Sororitas to that as Battle Brothers.

This Codex is for people who want Ordo Xenos Inquisitors to lead an Eldar army, not just Jokaeroes

BTW funny coincidence:
If the rumours are true and GW is indeed dropping metal and Finecast Q2 2014, then both C:AS and C:I will be kind of obsolete in half a year. Meaning that you can't buy any models for them from GW. So both Codices are more a ploy to sell off old stock than a show of real interest in both armies.

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .

This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!

Not really.

How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?

 Zweischneid wrote:
How does it further my credibility if I pre-censor my opinions in the name of sheepish GW(only)-bashing Dakka-conformity? If you despise plurality of opinions... don't go to internet forums!

I was referring more to sticking with accurate and factual accusations, but if you insist on seeing enemies and conspiracies everywhere, who am I to deny your wish? It just seems like such a woeful and sad perspective to take on what's supposed to be a hobby we engage in for fun. The grand pastime of miniatures collecting and painting deserves better.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Them earning your personal censure does not mean it was criminal.

If calling theft a crime is "personal censure" unique to my person, then so be it.

Even downloading MP3 is not theft. Something even more nebulous like IP infringement and questionable fair-use practices certainly do not qualify. Theft is what it says in the law, under "Theft". To be a criminal is to commit crimes, and the definition of crimes is found in criminal law. Now, whether or not CHS are guilty of morally objectionable acts or perhaps even offenses in the eyes of one or more deities is a separate topic. They may be sinners, but then again, which of us aren't?

I do believe some fellow from Syria or Palestine or thereabouts had something to say about that, regarding stones and possibly the throwing thereof.

 Rippy wrote:
There is a chance that future models are created and rules added/changed as required. That is the joy of digital downloads. Eventually have that female INQ added, and Eisenhorn, as well as artificer armor choices etc.

Small chance I know, but one can hope.

You are correct, there is a small chance.


That chance is zero.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Even downloading MP3 is not theft.

Downloading an MP3, possibly forging it to make it look like it is your own. and selling it for profit, however, is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:


I do believe some fellow from Syria or Palestine or thereabouts had something to say about that, regarding stones and possibly the throwing thereof.

If everyone here would adhere that with the constant speculative insinuations towards GW's (allegedly jadedly money-grabbing) internal process of creating products, I will stop as well.

In the spirit of mutual reciprocity of said prophet, criticize everyone on dakka who ever voices a non-100% factual-proof-based critique of GW with the same fervor that you just prosecuted my criticisms of Chapterhouse, and your self-proclaimed status as "watchdog of integer criticism" would have - as you called it - credibility.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .

This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!

Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?

As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

Even downloading MP3 is not theft.

Downloading an MP3, possibly forging it to make it look like it is your own. and selling it for profit, however, is.

What about listening to an album, liking the sound, getting your own band together to record similar songs? For example, Manowar doesnt have the exclusive right to make music about gleaming swords, Norse gods and manly men doing manly things, after all. If Chapterhouse had taken physical products, reworked them for sale and done as you describe, then fair go, maybe they would have been sanctioned even more severely.

But this is all a digression. Should you wish to continue, kindly do so in email, at the address agamemnon2ATqmail.com. I have no idea whose that is, but they have about as good a chance of developing a meaningful conclusion out of this than me, so fair goes.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .

This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!

Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?

As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?

More an O.J. Simpson type of thing I would say.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .

This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!

Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?

As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?

More an O.J. Simpson type of thing I would say.

So...Chapterhouse may or may not have murdered its wife?

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
They are still leeching off other people's ideas, Thou shalt not steal, etc.. . It's a despicable act, .

This, ladies and gentlemen, said in defence of GW with a straight face!

Not really.
How is it a defense of thief A, if you call thief B a thief as well?

As you are obviously a lawyer type: Can you show us, where Chapterhouse was accused and convicted for theft?
Or is this just another "Muslim Commie Obama did it" thing?

More an O.J. Simpson type of thing I would say.

So...Chapterhouse may or may not have murdered its wife?

If the shoulder-pad doesn't fit you must acquit!