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.

 Jancoran wrote:
Inquisitors require no troops in the Codex: Inquisition. so if you wanted and had unlimited Detachments you could take all the inquisitors you'd ever want.

So how do you fill your required Troops for an CAD or Allied Detachment or do you just have to go Unbound?

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Inquisitors require no troops in the Codex: Inquisition. so if you wanted and had unlimited Detachments you could take all the inquisitors you'd ever want.

So how do you fill your required Troops for an CAD or Allied Detachment or do you just have to go Unbound?

You aren't getting 7th ed yet. Inquisition have their own detachment, with only 1 hq required. You can have an army of nothing but inquisitors if you want, fully bound.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Inquisitors require no troops in the Codex: Inquisition. so if you wanted and had unlimited Detachments you could take all the inquisitors you'd ever want.

So how do you fill your required Troops for an CAD or Allied Detachment or do you just have to go Unbound?

You aren't getting 7th ed yet. Inquisition have their own detachment, with only 1 hq required. You can have an army of nothing but inquisitors if you want, fully bound.

So I got just let AB whine at me, great.

I spose so, yeah. Army Builder gets things wrong. Points on eldar Wave serpents for example are wrong. Watch that with opponents. Easy to tell who used army builder cause they are off on some of the wargear for them. Army builder will likely need a new edition for it to handle the unlimited options of 7E.

So is this a proper analogy?

Codex: Space Marines is updated. Today (hypothetically obviously). And it turns out only Ultramarines are in the new codex. People complain about the loss of value in the book, as it doesn't have other chapters. Other people poo poo that and say things like "ah, I didn't need that other junk anyway, this ultramarine stuff is better, which is all I care about!"

That's pretty much what happened to the GK codex, but worse, as it wasn't just chapter tactics and a few HQs lost, but a bunch of other units as well.

Super Newb wrote:
So is this a proper analogy?

Codex: Space Marines is updated. Today (hypothetically obviously). And it turns out only Ultramarines are in the new codex. People complain about the loss of value in the book, as it doesn't have other chapters. Other people poo poo that and say things like "ah, I didn't need that other junk anyway, this ultramarine stuff is better, which is all I care about!"

That's pretty much what happened to the GK codex, but worse, as it wasn't just chapter tactics and a few HQs lost, but a bunch of other units as well.

If they played Ultra-Marines, they would have no problems with it.

What are not seeing is that those who already have the Inquisition Codex [or got a PDF of it] or Played Pure Grey Knights don't see what they did as a problem.

I do see that a lot out there are don't like what happened and I feel for them. I don't like what they did with the Black Templars.
My issue with the Black Templars now is not that they were rolled into Codex: Space Marines, it is that they did not get there supplement.

Available to everyone, if they are willing to look for them are in order that they came out.
Codex: Inquisition
Codex: Grey Knights
Data-Slate: Assassins

Now though I have the option to play a large inquisition force without worrying about HAVING to take Cotez, without a single Grey Knight in it using any Imperial Unit I want to make up any force I feel like taking.
If I want to take an Assassin to tag along with my Space Marines I can just do it without having to take 1 HQ and 1 Troop First of Grey Knights first.
Sure it may cost more, but now there are a lot more options.

text removed.

reds8n

I have not said it was "Better than Sliced Bread".
I said it was a Good Codex that gives Grey Knight Players what they wanted, a Pure Grey Knight army. Nothing more nothing less.

So let me say something again:
I HAVE NEVER SAID THIS THIS BOOK WAS A BARGAN! ALL I HAVE EVER SAID WAS THIS BOOK GAVE ME EXATLY WHAT I WANTED THAT IS WHY IT IS GOOD INVESTMENT FOR ME!

Seems some people can't differentiate general comments versus specific ones directed only towards them.

Super Newb wrote:
Seems some people can't differentiate general comments versus specific ones directed only towards them.

Well when you quote me what am I supposed to think?

 Anpu42 wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Seems some people can't differentiate general comments versus specific ones directed only towards them.

Well when you quote me what am I supposed to think?

Oh no, not again, lol. Are you 'people'? I doubt you think of yourself in the plural. That's the first tip. Context helps too. *shrugs*

Really, "cheerleaders"? Sorry that we're not reflexively agreeing with you...

Your attempts at pretending you weren't directing comments, despite quoting anpu, is hilarious.

Care to explain how you could run a non Coteaz Inq force in fifth, without taking grey Knights? Something that, FACTUALLY, you can do now? Is that not an improvement?

Fact - this is a better GREY KNIGHTS book than previously. That is indisputable. There is no possible response to that other than "I am a person who can agree whena fact is a fact"

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Really, "cheerleaders"? Sorry that we're not reflexively agreeing with you...

Your attempts at pretending you weren't directing comments, despite quoting anpu, is hilarious.

Care to explain how you could run a non Coteaz Inq force in fifth, without taking grey Knights? Something that, FACTUALLY, you can do now? Is that not an improvement?

Fact - this is a better GREY KNIGHTS book than previously. That is indisputable. There is no possible response to that other than "I am a person who can agree whena fact is a fact"

That does not make it a better book for the players who primary army is GK, all that does is prove that GW is pushing an Ally agenda in 7th now. However IF I was running a Inq force only anyway, how does this make it a better GK book? You are essentially arguing that BECAUSE the Grey Knight codex was hamstrung in one aspect, it is better FOR them.

It's a better book about grey Knights, which is helpful for a book titled the same.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Really, "cheerleaders"? Sorry that we're not reflexively agreeing with you...

The (now deleted for some absurd reason) post was not about everyone agreeing. It was about some people not tolerating or accepting that others are not fans of the new GK book. Not empathizing with people's opinions but instead either always trying to minimize those folks' opinions or outright showing glee that those people's lists are no longer playable (or that a person would have to spend triple what they spend before in real world dollars in order to field their old list).

Your attempts at pretending you weren't directing comments, despite quoting anpu, is hilarious.

Anyone who read that post would see I was addressing a GROUP of people. I intentionally kept it general. No one should assume everything mentioned in an e-mail to a broad group of people would apply only to them. That if anything is what is 'hilarious.'

Fact - this is a better GREY KNIGHTS book than previously. That is indisputable. There is no possible response to that other than "I am a person who can agree whena fact is a fact"

This in fact is very disputable. What does better Grey Knights book even mean? Dreadnoughts are worse. PAGK are worse. Mordrak and Thrawn are worse (they don't exist). Yes DKs are better. Yes, the deep strike formation is great, yes GKTs are better. It's a mixed bag and 'better' depends on how much value people place on each unit.

*My* complaint, is based on an objective fact, which is that the new GK book has far less options than the previous book, even though it costs more money. That is actually a fact which actually cannot be disputed. That's different than your claim as I hope you can see now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
It's a better book about grey Knights, which is helpful for a book titled the same.

Which Grey Knights? It's not better for psycannon toting PAGK. Not better for people who loved to run Mordrak (I am sure these people exist somewhere lol). Not better for people who converted up autocannon dreads. etc; etc;

It's a more narrowly focused book, yes, since half the material was cut out of it. Sure. And you think that is better. Ok. Strange opinion but ok. I am sure you can accept that for me, where I'd have to pay TRIPLE in real world dollars to get the rules to run at least 80% of my old lists, that I *don't* think the new GK codex is better. You can accept that that is my opinion, Yes?

I loved running Mordrak but not because I was attached to the character. He had an awesome story but I loved him for his rules. Since his rules still exist and are army wide, I am not that upset by the loss of Mordrak as a unit. GW didn't even deem him important enough to warrant a specific model.

 Envihon wrote:
I loved running Mordrak but not because I was attached to the character. He had an awesome story but I loved him for his rules. Since his rules still exist and are army wide, I am not that upset by the loss of Mordrak as a unit. GW didn't even deem him important enough to warrant a specific model.

He can also be easily replicated by taking the following:
A Grand Master with the Cuirass of Sacrifice
A Paladin Squad with the Nemesis Banner and an Apothecary
Then use the Nemesis Strike Force and with the Re-Roll for your Warlord Trait you get a good chance of pulling off First to the Fray giving you 1st Turn Arrival with a re-roll on scatter.
You can also add a ALD with the Array for a 2+ First Turn Arrival.

 Envihon wrote:
I loved running Mordrak but not because I was attached to the character. He had an awesome story but I loved him for his rules. Since his rules still exist and are army wide, I am not that upset by the loss of Mordrak as a unit. GW didn't even deem him important enough to warrant a specific model.

His rules don't exist army wide. Please try to be precise instead of misleading. I would hate for someone to get the wrong impression after reading your words. Which they will because what you said is actually false. I'm troubled you phrased it this way, again, after this was already discussed earlier.

Mordrak has rules you said. Note the plural. Which one of his rules are army wide? Guaranteed first turn deep strike? Nope. No scatter deep strike? Nope. Ghost generation? Nope.

So what you meant to say is the new GK book has what you deem to be a sufficient replacement for Mordrak - namely the formation that lets units deep strike in on the first turn on a 3+ which also lets units run and shoot on the turn they DS down. That is NOT Mordrak's rules at all of course. But you like it (so do I, it's a great formation). But again, it is not Mordrak's rules.

Supernewb- I loved running Mordrak, and still love this book. You're not doing well here...

It isn't strange that, for someone who loves grey Knights, that a book all about them, where many lists are viable and interesting, is a better hook.

You still don't understand, which is fine, as your opinion isn't majorly important. I am not happy that half the material was cut. I am happy that a book titled GREY Knights is actually about grey Knights. Not coteaz, henchmen spquads in psybacks, and psyriflemen. I am happy that, conceptually and LONG TERM things are where they should be.

Oh, and "real world" dollars to play your old army? 0. GW has not forced anything on you. Peers may do, but GW hasn't.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Envihon wrote:
I loved running Mordrak but not because I was attached to the character. He had an awesome story but I loved him for his rules. Since his rules still exist and are army wide, I am not that upset by the loss of Mordrak as a unit. GW didn't even deem him important enough to warrant a specific model.

He can also be easily replicated by taking the following:
A Grand Master with the Cuirass of Sacrifice
A Paladin Squad with the Nemesis Banner and an Apothecary
Then use the Nemesis Strike Force and with the Re-Roll for your Warlord Trait you get a good chance of pulling off First to the Fray giving you 1st Turn Arrival with a re-roll on scatter.
You can also add a ALD with the Array for a 2+ First Turn Arrival.

Easily replicated to you means what, a 33% chance of occurring in the game? Six warlord traits, one reroll, that's about a 33% chance right? Is that really easy? Two out of Three games it won't happen. Also note that Paladin Squad costs a heck of a lot more than Mordrak's old ghosts did.

Anpu, you don't have to try to rebutt everything someone says in here. Especially when there is no good rebuttal to make. Ever hear of the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig"? That's what you did here. By trying to claim Mordrak could *easily* be replicated in the new dex. That just ain't true no matter how hard you try to dress it up all nicely.

Super Newb wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Envihon wrote:
I loved running Mordrak but not because I was attached to the character. He had an awesome story but I loved him for his rules. Since his rules still exist and are army wide, I am not that upset by the loss of Mordrak as a unit. GW didn't even deem him important enough to warrant a specific model.

He can also be easily replicated by taking the following:
A Grand Master with the Cuirass of Sacrifice
A Paladin Squad with the Nemesis Banner and an Apothecary
Then use the Nemesis Strike Force and with the Re-Roll for your Warlord Trait you get a good chance of pulling off First to the Fray giving you 1st Turn Arrival with a re-roll on scatter.
You can also add a ALD with the Array for a 2+ First Turn Arrival.

Easily replicated to you means what, a 33% chance of occurring in the game? Six warlord traits, one reroll, that's about a 33% chance right? Is that really easy? Two out of Three games it won't happen. Also note that Paladin Squad costs a heck of a lot more than Mordrak's old ghosts did.

Anpu, you don't have to try to rebutt everything someone says in here. Especially when there is no good rebuttal to make. Ever hear of the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig"? That's what you did here. By trying to claim Mordrak could *easily* be replicated in the new dex. That just ain't true no matter how hard you try to dress it up all nicely.

I did not rebut him, I gave him and option.
Why can't you accept that someone believes something different than YOU. If you have not noticed I have stopped trying to convince you for the past few days.
I have stated that I think you are wrong, you disagreed with me. We had a day or two of arguing and then I moved on.
Some one comment on how he like a unit that does not exist anymore. I gave an Option on how to Replicate him closely. If he did not like my option, that is fine.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Supernewb- I loved running Mordrak, and still love this book. You're not doing well here...

I don't understand your point. Not doing well here? How about you elaborate so you make some sense to me. Should I assume you think my argument is that Mordrak is gone and no one who liked him will like the new book? Why in the blazes would you ever think I said anything remotely like that? Seriously why? I am puzzled by your dismissive remark. Also my main 'complaint' is completely and utterly objective - no one can actually argue against it. Less options for more money (or around the same options, with three dexes for TRIPLE the money). There is no well or unwell there. It's a straight up fact.

You still don't understand, which is fine, as your opinion isn't majorly important.

This is borderline insulting. I do understand. In your haste to reply, where you didn't even quote my words, it seems you missed / forgot what I actually said and are going off some faint memory / dream of what you think was said. Can you please, in the future, if you want to discuss things with me, actually quote what you are responding to? Thanks. Also, no one's opinion anywhere here is important (or at least more important than anyone else's), though by your general dismissive and rude tone I am sure you disagree.

I am not happy that half the material was cut. I am happy that a book titled GREY Knights is actually about grey Knights. Not coteaz, henchmen spquads in psybacks, and psyriflemen. I am happy that, conceptually and LONG TERM things are where they should be.

So the last book wasn't about Grey Knights? Could've fooled me, tons of GK stuff was in the last book. MORE GK stuff was in there than there is now actually. So please, at least phrase your opinion properly. You are happy that a book titled GREY Knights is only about Grey Knights now, because you don't want the book to have other non-GK options. That's a fine opinion. One I don't share, but whatever. I actually used all the 'branches' of the last dex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 Envihon wrote:
I loved running Mordrak but not because I was attached to the character. He had an awesome story but I loved him for his rules. Since his rules still exist and are army wide, I am not that upset by the loss of Mordrak as a unit. GW didn't even deem him important enough to warrant a specific model.

He can also be easily replicated by taking the following:
A Grand Master with the Cuirass of Sacrifice
A Paladin Squad with the Nemesis Banner and an Apothecary
Then use the Nemesis Strike Force and with the Re-Roll for your Warlord Trait you get a good chance of pulling off First to the Fray giving you 1st Turn Arrival with a re-roll on scatter.
You can also add a ALD with the Array for a 2+ First Turn Arrival.

Easily replicated to you means what, a 33% chance of occurring in the game? Six warlord traits, one reroll, that's about a 33% chance right? Is that really easy? Two out of Three games it won't happen. Also note that Paladin Squad costs a heck of a lot more than Mordrak's old ghosts did.

Anpu, you don't have to try to rebutt everything someone says in here. Especially when there is no good rebuttal to make. Ever hear of the phrase "putting lipstick on a pig"? That's what you did here. By trying to claim Mordrak could *easily* be replicated in the new dex. That just ain't true no matter how hard you try to dress it up all nicely.

I did not rebut him, I gave him and option.
Why can't you accept that someone believes something different than YOU. If you have not noticed I have stopped trying to convince you for the past few days.
I have stated that I think you are wrong, you disagreed with me. We had a day or two of arguing and then I moved on.
Some one comment on how he like a unit that does not exist anymore. I gave an Option on how to Replicate him closely. If he did not like my option, that is fine.

Let's cut the baloney and victimization routine and stick to the point. Your opinion is a 33% chance of getting something in game is an easy way to replicate something from an old dex that worked 100% of the time in that dex. I say a 33% chance is not easy. It means in most games you won't get it at all. If you believe that is "easy" than heck yeah we disagree! IF you said Mordrak can be replicated in game a minority of the time, for more points than before, then I'd agree with you. But you tried to make it sound easy peasy. Which it ain't.

Accept that and move on, or keep trying to argue it is 'easy' to replicate him even though it'll mostly fail. Choice is yours.

The last book was called grey Knights, but had a huge chunk of not grey Knights. Clumsy, cluttered, stupid combos (daemon hosts and grey Knights. Woo).

Objectively this is a better book about grey Knights conceptually, as it is a GK book now. Not coteaz and friends.

I'm not dreaming, as you so rudely put it. Just finding your arguments not at all persuasive. Fact: every GK player I know of loves the new book,as we can play interesting GK armies now.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The last book was called grey Knights, but had a huge chunk of not grey Knights. Clumsy, cluttered, stupid combos (daemon hosts and grey Knights. Woo).

Objectively this is a better book about grey Knights conceptually, as it is a GK book now. Not coteaz and friends.

I'm not dreaming, as you so rudely put it. Just finding your arguments not at all persuasive. Fact: every GK player I know of loves the new book,as we can play interesting GK armies now.

So in summary. You won't quote what you are responding to even after I asked you to (after pointing out your odd comment earlier that appeared to have no relation to anything I actually said). Also, you won't apologize for dissing me, saying I don't understand and that my opinion is not important. And you have the audacity to call me rude?

We're done. (Edited to add - In case the implication wasn't clear you've been put on ignore - I hope your post following mine here has an apology for your behavior. Not that I will ever see it, but I hope it does at least. Good day)

No need to quote, as I was replying directly after yours.

You showed no understanding of the point made, as you claimed I thought dropping half the content was a good idea. I never said that, it was just the latest poor post from you.

You are, indeed, done.

Yeah, I am almost done with this thread. I came here for discussion, not so much a condescending and know-it-all tone of how everyone is wrong and the people that disagree are right.

I may have phrased something that could be a bit mis-leading but it was far from wrong. The essence of the Grey Knights are still contained in this book. The essence of Mordrak is still in the book. What made Mordrak good which was an alpha strike first turn to go in concert with a shunting move, is still in the codex and my point was that the players who played Mordrak lists should actually like this book instead of lamenting the loss of that specific character. No longer do you need to take a specific HQ to build a strategy around because the entire book now supports the strategy which to me is a reason to celebrate it.

Have you even done any play testing? Seen the failings of the book or simply doing the "equations" and calling it crap. If my play tests would of failed, I would of admitted to it and perhaps moved on to do more of my Imperial Fist army but the codex does work as intended and is an enjoyable, fun codex to play with. My GKs have done really well in matches, my tactics and strategy have never been stronger, this is with missing a key character in my strategy, Mordrak but my army still plays like it did when I had Mordrak, the only difference is that is does it more efficiently. And I will take real world results over some guy on the internet just saying that it is crap.

 Envihon wrote:
Yeah, I am almost done with this thread. I came here for discussion, not so much a condescending and know-it-all tone of how everyone is wrong and the people that disagree are right.

What does this even mean? Who is saying everyone is wrong? Where? Care to find a quote of this claim you just made?

I may have phrased something that could be a bit mis-leading but it was far from wrong. The essence of the Grey Knights are still contained in this book. The essence of Mordrak is still in the book. What made Mordrak good which was an alpha strike first turn to go in concert with a shunting move, is still in the codex and my point was that the players who played Mordrak lists should actually like this book instead of lamenting the loss of that specific character. No longer do you need to take a specific HQ to build a strategy around because the entire book now supports the strategy which to me is a reason to celebrate it

You. Said. Something. 100% Incorrect. It is not a crime to point that out (nor is it a crime to admit when one totally messes up a sentence and ends up stating a falsehood). Mordrak's rules aren't army wide now. You said they were. That is flat out, 100% wrong. There is no other way to state it. I corrected you, that's all. Now, of course, some similar to Mordrak stuff is army-wide, similar in that a form of first turn deep strike can happen (a form of first turn deep strike vastly different than Mordraks first turn deep strike mind you, the only similarity is potentially deep striking on the first turn). Words have meaning and when you are so imprecise in what you are trying to get across that you actually state falsehoods, people are going to call you out on it. Now, thankfully, you used much better language just now "the essence of Mordrak is still in the book." That's a lot broader and includes what you explained nicely now I about Mordrak lists. That's a good paragraph. But come on man, you gotta admit you wrote a sentence that was absolutely 100% false earlier. Mordrak's rules aren't army wide. He auto deep struck on turn 1, army-wide doesn't have that now, they have to roll for it. He didn't scatter, army-wide now does. He and his squad could either run or shoot, now army-wide they can do both. Very different rules-wise.

And I will take real world results over some guy on the internet just saying that it is crap.

Who said this? Are you referring to me? Care to find a quote? What are you even talking about here? Did I say anything about how deep strike and shunt lists play competitively? Nope. I just said Mordrak wasn't in the codex (along with a ton of other stuff removed). Then you said that false statement about Mordrak and his rules, I corrected you and here we are. So I am not sure why you are implying things I never said. This is why quoting your fellow commenter is important.

Mistakes happen.

and i agree: Real world results speak to me. theory crafting when terrain can be infinitely variable is something im not down with especially unless there's just insufficnet real evidence to go on. Which isnt the rule.

 Jancoran wrote:
Mistakes happen.

and i agree: Real world results speak to me. theory crafting when terrain can be infinitely variable is something im not down with especially unless there's just insufficnet real evidence to go on. Which isnt the rule.

Same here, my Motto with that is:
I Loath MathHammer!
I Love MathHammer with Play Testing!

Super Newb wrote:

 Envihon wrote:
Yeah, I am almost done with this thread. I came here for discussion, not so much a condescending and know-it-all tone of how everyone is wrong and the people that disagree are right.

What does this even mean? Who is saying everyone is wrong? Where? Care to find a quote of this claim you just made?

I may have phrased something that could be a bit mis-leading but it was far from wrong. The essence of the Grey Knights are still contained in this book. The essence of Mordrak is still in the book. What made Mordrak good which was an alpha strike first turn to go in concert with a shunting move, is still in the codex and my point was that the players who played Mordrak lists should actually like this book instead of lamenting the loss of that specific character. No longer do you need to take a specific HQ to build a strategy around because the entire book now supports the strategy which to me is a reason to celebrate it

You. Said. Something. 100% Incorrect. It is not a crime to point that out (nor is it a crime to admit when one totally messes up a sentence and ends up stating a falsehood). Mordrak's rules aren't army wide now. You said they were. That is flat out, 100% wrong. There is no other way to state it. I corrected you, that's all. Now, of course, some similar to Mordrak stuff is army-wide, similar in that a form of first turn deep strike can happen (a form of first turn deep strike vastly different than Mordraks first turn deep strike mind you, the only similarity is potentially deep striking on the first turn). Words have meaning and when you are so imprecise in what you are trying to get across that you actually state falsehoods, people are going to call you out on it. Now, thankfully, you used much better language just now "the essence of Mordrak is still in the book." That's a lot broader and includes what you explained nicely now I about Mordrak lists. That's a good paragraph. But come on man, you gotta admit you wrote a sentence that was absolutely 100% false earlier. Mordrak's rules aren't army wide. He auto deep struck on turn 1, army-wide doesn't have that now, they have to roll for it. He didn't scatter, army-wide now does. He and his squad could either run or shoot, now army-wide they can do both. Very different rules-wise.

And I will take real world results over some guy on the internet just saying that it is crap.

Who said this? Are you referring to me? Care to find a quote? What are you even talking about here? Did I say anything about how deep strike and shunt lists play competitively? Nope. I just said Mordrak wasn't in the codex (along with a ton of other stuff removed). Then you said that false statement about Mordrak and his rules, I corrected you and here we are. So I am not sure why you are implying things I never said. This is why quoting your fellow commenter is important.

Saying Mordrak's rules are army wide, isn't 100% wrong, maybe misleading but not 100% wrong. If I would of said something like "Every rule Mordrak had exactly the way Mordrak had it is now army wide" that would be an incorrect statement. "Mordrak's rules are army wide now" is vague enough to be a correct portrayal of the new rules that the GK have but misleading at the same time but the statement still contains no specifics so it can't be 100% wrong. This is arguing semantics at this point though which has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I can admit my mistakes and I admit to the statement being misleading but not wrong. An attempt to show people that Mordrak wasn't eliminated merely had his rules taken and basically given to the whole army because Mordrak was probably the one thing that functioned like GK do in the fluff. A way to show those who are having misgivings that Mordrak was gone, that they still have the army they had in the 5th edition codex. Someone has already detailed how to make a Mordrak and even GW said that they may have been taking some of the named characters away but they were making sure that their rules were still in the codex. To have given Mordrak's exact rules to the army would have been ridiculously good and made non-GK players flip tables, people already got upset when it was just Mordrak and his Knights so this is something that I had in mind when making such a statement and something that I think that readers are also discern if they knew Mordrak's rules. I don't like to be outright condescending to people and if someone was mislead by it, to ask questions instead of flipping out and belittling other posters which makes for a distasteful conversation. I am not deliberately trying to mislead people, merely not have anyone give up one the army because of some changes when the essence of the character they liked are contained within the codex.