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.

 Viper666 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?

It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".

The Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband is 1 "unit" of Acolytes and for all other models, it's 0-1 model, not 0-1 "unit" of Models.... this means you can only have 1 of each models as stated on the new FAQ.

FAQ
Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

The datasheet picture clearly shows multiple assassins, acoflagellants and crusaders.....

It's because DCA (and probably Crusaders too) are a 2 models unit (with option to buy 8 more)... since their blister come in pack of 2. Arco-flagellants will probably be a 3 models unit (as in the picture) with option to buy probably 6-9 more) since they come in blisters of 3....
But as for the FAQ ruling, you won't be able to buy more models in the formation.
This is probably why you also get 0-6 Daemonhosts (because they'll probably come as 1-model unit with options to buy more)....

The question is very specific and was answered on that basis. The entry in question used the name of the model "1 Tomb Spyder" instead of the units actual name, and the question was whether you could just assume that that meant that you could also pick the entire unit (of 1-3 Tomb Spyders). The core rules are still in effect however, and they tell you that what's listed in a Formation are units, not models. The FAQ simply adds to that that if for some reason there's a model listed instead of the unit, you can't just swap that out. It's not redefining how Formations work - so it's not saying "unless there's a [unit of] or [squadron of] in there it's a model 100% of the time".

I can see why you'd read it differently, though. The FAQ entry is worded very badly.

The footnote also thinks they're units. "These units must form a single unit with this Formation's unit of Acolytes". Not "models".

It seems you can even take a single crusader or dca since they start with two models and go up.

I was hoping crusaders and dca were going to be wolf guard style units were you could break the squad up into IC's to attach to other units. Doesn't sound like this is the case.

nekooni wrote:

 Viper666 wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 MadCowCrazy wrote:
Hmm, now that I look it again am I mistaken on the units? It says 0-1 Crusaders, Arco, Death Cult... they do mean units right? or is it really 0-1 models? If so this formations is pretty much useless. I thought you could create a 50 model death star but this seems rather slowed...?

It's units. They're using plural and that's what the units are called, too - so "0-1 DCAs" translates to "either 0 or 2-10 DCA models".

The Inquisitorial Henchmen Warband is 1 "unit" of Acolytes and for all other models, it's 0-1 model, not 0-1 "unit" of Models.... this means you can only have 1 of each models as stated on the new FAQ.

FAQ
Q: When listing Formations, sometimes it states ‘1 model’ (like 1 Tomb Spyder), while other times it lists ‘1 Unit of models’ (like 1 unit of Tomb Blades). Are these interchangeable?
A: No. The former means a single model of the type listed, while the later means a single unit of the type listed.

The datasheet picture clearly shows multiple assassins, acoflagellants and crusaders.....

It's because DCA (and probably Crusaders too) are a 2 models unit (with option to buy 8 more)... since their blister come in pack of 2. Arco-flagellants will probably be a 3 models unit (as in the picture) with option to buy probably 6-9 more) since they come in blisters of 3....
But as for the FAQ ruling, you won't be able to buy more models in the formation.
This is probably why you also get 0-6 Daemonhosts (because they'll probably come as 1-model unit with options to buy more)....

The question is very specific and was answered on that basis. The entry in question used the name of the model "1 Tomb Spyder" instead of the units actual name, and the question was whether you could just assume that that meant that you could also pick the entire unit (of 1-3 Tomb Spyders). The core rules are still in effect however, and they tell you that what's listed in a Formation are units, not models. The FAQ simply adds to that that if for some reason there's a model listed instead of the unit, you can't just swap that out. It's not redefining how Formations work - so it's not saying "unless there's a [unit of] or [squadron of] in there it's a model 100% of the time".

I can see why you'd read it differently, though. The FAQ entry is worded very badly.

The footnote also thinks they're units. "These units must form a single unit with this Formation's unit of Acolytes". Not "models".

Well if it's really the case (which I think won't be the case), that would make a lot of Daemonhosts models in a unit (since 0-6 Daemonhosts with each Daemonhosts unit with let's say 3-6 model each)... A Daemonhost Horde Army.....

 Melissia wrote:

Inquisitor Kallus wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
So inquisitors still cannot take Arti armor? That isn't fluffy... Though I would at least think all three ordos by now could use whatever armor then wanted by now.

Relics change? If its been answered please kindly direct me to the page.

And force fields - most Inquisitors have at least one energy shield!

Relics - do you mean the one per model (although Tau players keep trying to avoid it)

Most Inquisitors don't wear Power Armour let alone articifer armour. It does make sense though that many players would feel Power armour for Inquisitors is the norm if they only play tabletop and not any of the RPGs or Inquisitor game. This is especially true as most of the 40k ones have been 'battlefield' inquisitors, more Coteaz and power armour wearing male and female Inquisitors and less Gideon Lorr. The same is true of force fields, though they are more common than power armour and much less conspicuous. I dont know of any Inquisitors, to my knowledge, sporting more than one personal field device.

Amberley Vail used power armor once in the Cain books, to clear out a genestealer nest. But most of the time she wouldn't.

40k table top is however simulating exactly the time when she would wear her armour, same is true of other Inquisitors - and if they were not wearing armour they would certainly have some kind of force field. And yet they are denied this.

We are not usually simulating the investigation but rather the reaction, the strike against the enemy and if the Inquisitor is coming along, he or she should make sure they are well protected - so best armour they can wear at the time and/or energy shields.

Otherwise you might as well not have them and instead have a model of them sipping tea aboard their orbiting ship watching the holo which is equally valid

 Viper666 wrote:
Well if it's really the case (which I think won't be the case), that would make a lot of Daemonhosts models in a unit (since 0-6 Daemonhosts with each Daemonhosts unit with let's say 3-6 model each)... A Daemonhost Horde Army.....

I expect Daemonhosts to be 1 model / unit , same for the Jokaero. But that's just a guess based on what "feels right" once you have a look at the final unit and compare it to the original one from C:Inq. Crusaders/DCAs/Arcos somewhere around 2-10 and the others 1 per unit, so 0-6 jokaeros, 0-1 priests and so on. IIRC you could have bought 12 Priests, but has anyone ever done that? one, MAYBE two made sense, but that's it.

The Inquisition Codex allows for units of Daemonhosts, no matter how lore-breakingly stupid that sounds, so they could have kept that.

While it's possible that Daemonhosts and Jokaero are 1 - 2 models (so they max out at 12 per retinue), from context they're probably single models. I can't see any reason you'd be able to include more of them than Crusaders etc.

Thommy H wrote:
While it's possible that Daemonhosts and Jokaero are 1 - 2 models (so they max out at 12 per retinue), from context they're probably single models. I can't see any reason you'd be able to include more of them than Crusaders etc.

Yupp, that's my reasoning as well. We'll see what they came up with once we have the other pages available.

From the codex images posted on Faeit it shows Acolytes as a unit while everything else in the listing for the henchmen squad shows the number of models you can take. Whats a major facepalm is the lack of any Psykers in the unit and the 0-1 Death Cult Assassins which basically kills the Crusader Squad's melee power. Funny enough the picture for the Inq Henchmen Warband shows multiple Arco-Flagellants and Assassins despite both being listed as 0-1.

Seriously though this book is a trainwreck and its embarrassing how poorly done this book appears to be when compared to how good the traitor legions book is.

 Vankraken wrote:
From the codex images posted on Faeit it shows Acolytes as a unit while everything else in the listing for the henchmen squad shows the number of models you can take. Whats a major facepalm is the lack of any Psykers in the unit and the 0-1 Death Cult Assassins which basically kills the Crusader Squad's melee power. Funny enough the picture for the Inq Henchmen Warband shows multiple Arco-Flagellants and Assassins despite both being listed as 0-1.

.

Yes, because it's 0-1 Death Cult Assasins and Arco-Flagellants- it's the data sheet, not the model. And the data sheets allow 0-n models. The unit names could have been clearer but that's what it's referring to. I don't think this is the same as the "1 tomb spider" issue.

Key thing is the use of plurals. If it's 0 - 1 of a single model, it uses the singular (e.g. "0 - 1 Astropath"), but if it's 0 - 1 of a unit, they're plural (e.g. "0 - 1 Crusaders"). If more than one is allowed though, it's always plural so we can't be certain at this stage how those units are composed (but see inference outlined above).

In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.

No more Servo Skulls?

I know a few KDK and Tau players will be happy now...

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
No more Servo Skulls?

I know a few KDK and Tau players will be happy now...

A Free Warlord Trait has kinda Replaced it
(I.E Roll on Strategic and Tactical Tables)

 Vankraken wrote:
In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.

The formatting in the entry is consistent though. The Astropath is singular, while the DCAs aren't, for example. This is what you'd expect too - we know the DCAs run around in units and Astropaths tend to appear as (and be sold as, importantly...) lone advisors. Likewise all the other pluralised entries are for choices that would logically be units.

Applying Occam's Razor, it seems unlikley the henchmen unit would allow you to field only a single Crusader or Arco-flagellant alongside six Daemonhosts or Jokaero.

That means, however, that seeing as DCA's, and thus presumably crysaders amd flagelants, can be taken in units of 10, you could potentially have a henchman squad consisting of 32+ models...

Thommy H wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.

The formatting in the entry is consistent though. The Astropath is singular, while the DCAs aren't, for example. This is what you'd expect too - we know the DCAs run around in units and Astropaths tend to appear as (and be sold as, importantly...) lone advisors. Likewise all the other pluralised entries are for choices that would logically be units.

Applying Occam's Razor, it seems unlikley the henchmen unit would allow you to field only a single Crusader or Arco-flagellant alongside six Daemonhosts or Jokaero.

Actually I think your right but not because of the use of plurals but because of the page numbers. All the 0-1 stuff has page numbers in the 60s (datasheets I assume) while the 0-6 entries are in the 100s (probably not unit dataslates and probably in the back of the book). Again it is extremely unclear and they should of followed more logical formatting by listing "0-1 units of Crusaders". Even then RAW could be argued as being models as in the same listing and formatting it has Jokaero which probably don't have a unit entry. That being said these Henchman squads could get zogging huge if you can bring that many full size units and combine them into a super unit.

 Vankraken wrote:

Thommy H wrote:

 Vankraken wrote:
In other formations for units it states "0-1 unit of X" or "0-2 Y" for models. For example for the Space Wolves it lists
0-1 units of Wolf Scouts
0-2 Lone Wolves
In a formation where they are optional.
For the Death Cult Assassins with the new book the entry for them is a unit composition of 2 with additional models allowed so it should say "0-1 unit of Death Cult Assassins" Instead it just states 0-1 Death Cult Assassins. The other formations don't say "0-1 Wolf Scouts" when they are referring to a unit of them. Perhaps its an error in printing but they did it for every entry in the Henchmen formation beside Acolytes.

The formatting in the entry is consistent though. The Astropath is singular, while the DCAs aren't, for example. This is what you'd expect too - we know the DCAs run around in units and Astropaths tend to appear as (and be sold as, importantly...) lone advisors. Likewise all the other pluralised entries are for choices that would logically be units.

Applying Occam's Razor, it seems unlikley the henchmen unit would allow you to field only a single Crusader or Arco-flagellant alongside six Daemonhosts or Jokaero.

Actually I think your right but not because of the use of plurals but because of the page numbers. All the 0-1 stuff has page numbers in the 60s (datasheets I assume) while the 0-6 entries are in the 100s (probably not unit dataslates and probably in the back of the book). Again it is extremely unclear and they should of followed more logical formatting by listing "0-1 units of Crusaders". Even then RAW could be argued as being models as in the same listing and formatting it has Jokaero which probably don't have a unit entry. That being said these Henchman squads could get zogging huge if you can bring that many full size units and combine them into a super unit.

It's not really unclear once you consider that the "1 model" thing is the special snowflake here. The basic rules tell you that it's a unit, period. Some formations call out specific models instead[they're exceptions], and that's where the FAQ applies that says you can't just replace such a special occurance with the whole unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nudibranch wrote:
That means, however, that seeing as DCA's, and thus presumably crysaders amd flagelants, can be taken in units of 10, you could potentially have a henchman squad consisting of 32+ models...

Yupp. But is that a smart idea? No, not at all. So you're free to build it like that.

Honestly, RAI in my opinion, I personally think it's 0-1 models, not units. Otherwise the formation would have the DW killteam restriction where the combined unit can't exceed a certain mumber of models.

 nudibranch wrote:
Honestly, RAI in my opinion, I personally think it's 0-1 models, not units. Otherwise the formation would have the DW killteam restriction where the combined unit can't exceed a certain mumber of models.

Why does it need that?
Even applying your logic that unit can be 20 models big or something ridiculous. 6 Jokaero and Daemonhosts + Crusader + DCA + Priest + Astropath + Enginseer means you're looking at 17 models PLUS the entirely undisputed "unit of Acolytes" that might very well add another 10 models or more. I've probably even missed a model or two here.

There're units of 50 models and more in 40k already (e.g. Infantry Platoons using Combined Squads), so why exactly would being able to create a 30-40 model unit that's very much useless be a big deal?

Using them the way I think they work e.g. 1 Acolyte (wild assumption that that's the minimum), 7 DCAs, 7 Crusaders and 1 Priest is the max you'd probably do for a single squad since you still have to get these guys somewhere, and that's gonna take a transport. LR Crusaders have a capacity of 16, that's probably the biggest transport they can use.

And honestly - if you feel like footslogging a giant unit of 10 Crusaders, 10 Flagellants, 6 Daemonhosts, 10 DCAs and some Acolytes sprinkled on top of that - that's fine with me. Or any other ridiculous blob you could come up with that involves a ton of crusaders, Flagellants or DCAs.
All the shooty options are undisputed anyway, and those would be the only ones that might end up dangerous as a huge blob. 10 Crusaders in front of 6 Jokaero LasCans ? Meh. That's 150 points of Stormshields and (if price stayed the same) 210 points of monkeys. for 6 Laser Cannons hitting on 4+ that are somewhat tough to kill, unless you have Barrage Weapons. Or high volumes of S3+ dakka.
For the price of what, an Imperial Knight?

I'm 99% sure it's units. Consistency, precedent and logic all point in that direction. Again, you'd have to assume the intention is to allow only a single DCA (which are sold as a pair) while allowing up to six Jokaero (of which there is only one model, sold singly) to favour the other interpretation.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
No more Servo Skulls?

I know a few KDK and Tau players will be happy now...

Rolling back some of this gak is the first step toward taking this game out of stupid mode.

Rereading the leaked datasheet, I think I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction

Still think this is really strange from a fluff perspective. These aren't conscripts: they're the hand-picked retinue for one of the imperium's most important agents. Also miffed at no invulns for inquisitors outside of termi armour. Seriously, they have access to almost the entire imperial armoury, can requisition units of the Emperor's finests, have the sanctions to use ancient and prohibited wargear... but cam't take a bloody refractor field?!

I'm unable to verify the post at the moment. I also do not tend to react emotionally to stuff like this as it would not change anything to the better

Screenshot by Markain on www.gw-fanworld.net - from 40k FB

https://www.gw-fanworld.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=318799&d=1481635794

I'm not sure GW should post stuff like this. If they don't plan to release plastic Sisters they should say so straight away. If they do, keep silence until the miniatures are ready and drum up interest shortly before release. Maybe they do already and this is their way? But it is getting kind of... annoying... to be honest.

 nudibranch wrote:
Still think this is really strange from a fluff perspective. These aren't conscripts: they're the hand-picked retinue for one of the imperium's most important agents.

Some, but not all. Arco flagellants are condemned men serving as cannon fodder in a fate worse than servitordome. Operating in groups is what sets death cult assassins apart from the other kinds.

In practice you won't see this used to run massive blob squads of everything running up the field to get pie-plated into oblivion, but carefully selected squads that can support each other. Monkeys behind a line of crusader shields, or assassins and flagellants charging out of a land raider and shocking everybody when they actually work.

Warhams-77 wrote:
I'm unable to verify the post at the moment. I also do not tend to react emotionally to stuff like this as it would not change anything to the better

Screenshot by Markain on www.gw-fanworld.net - from 40k FB

https://www.gw-fanworld.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=318799&d=1481635794

I'm not sure GW should post stuff like this. If they don't plan to release plastic Sisters they should say so straight away. If they do, keep silence until the miniatures are ready and drum up interest shortly before release. Maybe they do already and this is their way? But it is getting kind of... annoying... to be honest.

Or they could get ahead of the backlash that just sitting silently and not addressing any of the issues people are raising would ferment and defuse it by saying that plastic sisters are coming and tell people when.

Or they're just being coy? Honestly, neither this nor the original video are evidence of anything much.

 nudibranch wrote:
Rereading the leaked datasheet, I think I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction

Still think this is really strange from a fluff perspective. These aren't conscripts: they're the hand-picked retinue for one of the imperium's most important agents. Also miffed at no invulns for inquisitors outside of termi armour. Seriously, they have access to almost the entire imperial armoury, can requisition units of the Emperor's finests, have the sanctions to use ancient and prohibited wargear... but cam't take a bloody refractor field?!

The CIA codex seems to be is the bare minimum of effort on the rules side - mostly copy paste with a few bits here and there adjusted, but no real thought on how to improve the units etc.

It would have made sense for the Inquisitors to have the full range of armour and fields but I doubt it occurred to anyone to make adjustments of that level even if tis fits the lore perfectly and would not make a major difference in game terms. It was probably slotted in between new Marine rules and the next actual supplement with models with a very finite limit of time to be spent.

Frankly I think the 'lazy' argument is jumping the gun a bit. Not giving them fields was a conscious decision when they first assembled the codex, and it's one I generally agree with: an Inquisitor on the field of battle should be something the player wants to protect, while you should be able to invest to make him more fighty, at the end of the day I don't think he can adhere broadly to the fluff and be the big bruiser of a death star.

Would a 5++ really have hurt though? Especially when a priest has a 4++...