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.

Marik Law wrote:I think I have a great idea pulled from the very pages of other Imperial books. Here's my list idea...

Wow.

I think you have single-handedly cured my rules-writers block that I've been having with our Codex: Inquisition. Your proposed list of items/unit choices is great. It's simple, but it works perfectly.

Thank you for the inspiration.

BYE

aka_mythos wrote

Just with the chamber militant we have 3 mini-lists representing hyper specialized forces giving 17 non-compatible units; those units wouldn't just not work together their rivalry might even make them want to bust each others heads a bit, call it ego. Then we toss in the three Ordo of the inquisition; thats even more choices. If GW make one big homogeneous codex, they have to completely ignore the inherent rivalry the is pervasive between the three Ordos. That fluff based implication make unlockables the most likely and most ideal way (so far put forth) to deal with that fact. If you make a codex with unlockable the primary consideration must be made to making individual sub-faction choices to be viable as well as combinations of sub-factions viable.

I think the Inquisition Codex here is suffering a severe split personality problem.

Whilst I agree absolutely with this, I can't help but be reminded of every piece of fluff ever written back in the good old Realm of Chaos days.
'Tzeentch will not ally with Nurgle (and Khorne will not ally with Slaanesh). Ever. Under any circumstances. They will not fight side by side, only with each other - because they hate each other that much.'
Rules specifically forbade Chaos armies from having these combinations. All the most recent Chaos publications are 'Yes, Chaos is one big happy family where Plaguebearers will cheerfully be led into battle by Lord's of Change, and Fiends have races with Juggernauts to see who can be the first score 10 kills, loser buys the beer!'

GW is not willing to place any restrictions on army lists based on fluff. If they ever produce a unified Inquisition codex you will be able to take everything in any combination you want.

We can only hope they change their design philosophy in the next 10 years, so when they finally do a re-write it will be a good one!!

Chimera_Calvin wrote:

aka_mythos wrote

Just with the chamber militant we have 3 mini-lists representing hyper specialized forces giving 17 non-compatible units; those units wouldn't just not work together their rivalry might even make them want to bust each others heads a bit, call it ego. Then we toss in the three Ordo of the inquisition; thats even more choices. If GW make one big homogeneous codex, they have to completely ignore the inherent rivalry the is pervasive between the three Ordos. That fluff based implication make unlockables the most likely and most ideal way (so far put forth) to deal with that fact. If you make a codex with unlockable the primary consideration must be made to making individual sub-faction choices to be viable as well as combinations of sub-factions viable.

I think the Inquisition Codex here is suffering a severe split personality problem.

Whilst I agree absolutely with this, I can't help but be reminded of every piece of fluff ever written back in the good old Realm of Chaos days.
'Tzeentch will not ally with Nurgle (and Khorne will not ally with Slaanesh). Ever. Under any circumstances. They will not fight side by side, only with each other - because they hate each other that much.'
Rules specifically forbade Chaos armies from having these combinations. All the most recent Chaos publications are 'Yes, Chaos is one big happy family where Plaguebearers will cheerfully be led into battle by Lord's of Change, and Fiends have races with Juggernauts to see who can be the first score 10 kills, loser buys the beer!'
GW is not willing to place any restrictions on army lists based on fluff. If they ever produce a unified Inquisition codex you will be able to take everything in any combination you want.
We can only hope they change their design philosophy in the next 10 years, so when they finally do a re-write it will be a good one!!

Well if you look at the proposed codex it does not actually prevent someone from having a mix of ordos; a player if insistent is just limited to two ordos at a given time in a given army list. So you can mix armies, there is just a check in place, makes you pay the premium of a second HQ to gain access; whole concept of unlockables.

The design philosophy you speak of wouldn't really work here; chaos could get away with it cause its chaos; the inquisition follows a stricter organization. It is a hyper-sense of ideology that defines the ordos, dividing them by what they each perceive is the biggest threat. So while they will work together they are still restricted by their hierarchies. Thus the unlocking system with HQ purchase.

aka_mythos wrote:Well if you look at the proposed codex it does not actually prevent someone from having a mix of ordos; a player if insistent is just limited to two ordos at a given time in a given army list. So you can mix armies, there is just a check in place, makes you pay the premium of a second HQ to gain access; whole concept of unlockables.

The design philosophy you speak of wouldn't really work here; chaos could get away with it cause its chaos; the inquisition follows a stricter organization. It is a hyper-sense of ideology that defines the ordos, dividing them by what they each perceive is the biggest threat. So while they will work together they are still restricted by their hierarchies. Thus the unlocking system with HQ purchase.

I don't think that is a very good argument. By and large, the Inquisition has the same goals to preserve Humanity, they just differ in the tools and methods. Kind of like arguing whether it's better to use epoxy or superglue, and whether pinning is required. Details.

Chaos has goals that ultimately conflict - Nurgle has no intent to share with Tzeentch, nor Slannesh with Khorne. Ultimately, they want to be selfish as the sole winner. They only agree on intermediate steps, such as razing Cadia and killing the Emperor.

In any case, going with what is largely an open approach is easier and simply places the Fluff in the hands of the player. It is easier not to create the restriction and then to let the player place their own restrictions or themes on their army.

For example, if I want to play Inquisition "counts as" Ad Mech, using my list, I can do that pretty easily. But with all of the unlocking rules, I'd really be stuck with a much narrower selection of choices imposed by the list creator. In other words, unless there is a balance problem, it's better to simply allow the player to create the army, rather than tell the army what they can take.

I don't think "count as" armies should be a priotity of a codex build.

When I say chaos is chaos, the fact that their army list is open and units that would be unlikely to cooperate with each other are in the same list was intended by the codex writer to convey the chaotic nature of a military force held together by the constant self motivated ambition of different individuals.

An open codex would create redundancy by creating a lot of units that would come into conflict; why take a purgation squad when a DW devastator squad fills the same role better; also that opens up people to taking commanders that don't correspond to their army, you could have the only sister of battle or witch hunter in the entire army be a Heroine and the rest be whatever else and that wouldn't make to much sense.

The Inquisition army is an army of specialist elites, tasked with fighting specific enemies. In practical terms those sort of elite forces don't want to operate with forces that operate in a contrary way. With an open codex you open up the strong and very likely possibility that people will pick out only the best units from the list without taking any of the downsides associated with a particular Ordo. GK hard hitting but high cost, lack of heavy weapons. SoB cheaper units with lower WS, S, T with limited heavy weapons. DW specialized ammo providing average troops with weapons equivalent to special weapons; can infiltrate; high cost; limited vehicle support.

With an open non-fluff codex we could remove half the choices available keeping only the choice options that everyone will take removing the clearly inferior ones.

aka_mythos wrote:I don't think "count as" armies should be a priotity of a codex build.

An open codex would create redundancy

The Inquisition army is an army of specialist elites, tasked with fighting specific enemies.

With an open non-fluff codex we could remove half the choices available keeping only the choice options that everyone will take removing the clearly inferior ones.

Counts as isn't a priority except in terms of the basic philosophy of letting the player decide.

I'm willing to accept a little redunancy, as it's OK to have a little competition. For reference, go look at my version. How much redundancy is there? And how much problem is there with it if one is building a 1500-pt list with a standard FOC?

I have a ton of Elites in my list, and a bunch of mostly generics elsewhere. No problem or disagreement.

Powergamer players will do that anyways, so what should it matter? When Chaos had 1 list per Legion, players gravitated to a mere 3 lists (Iron Warriors, Daemonbomb, and Infiltrators). And if you look at CSM right now, it appears that GW got 80 to 90% of the list correct (only 3 problem units by consensus). That's a much better ratio compared to what came before (only 3 viable builds by consensus).

An open list only needs to balance the one list. With your unlocking, you need to balance 6 solo lists, along with 30 dual-combination lists, *and* make them all equally playable and attractive. Most likely, with the unlocking business, there will be one dominant mono build, 2 good blends, and nothing else played. So over half the work is wasted making units and options that don't ever get used.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I don't think "count as" armies should be a priotity of a codex build.

An open codex would create redundancy by creating a lot of units that would come into conflict; why take a purgation squad when a DW devastator squad fills the same role better; also that opens up people to taking commanders that don't correspond to their army, you could have the only sister of battle or witch hunter in the entire army be a Heroine and the rest be whatever else and that wouldn't make to much sense.

The Inquisition army is an army of specialist elites, tasked with fighting specific enemies. In practical terms those sort of elite forces don't want to operate with forces that operate in a contrary way. With an open codex you open up the strong and very likely possibility that people will pick out only the best units from the list without taking any of the downsides associated with a particular Ordo. GK hard hitting but high cost, lack of heavy weapons. SoB cheaper units with lower WS, S, T with limited heavy weapons. DW specialized ammo providing average troops with weapons equivalent to special weapons; can infiltrate; high cost; limited vehicle support.

With an open non-fluff codex we could remove half the choices available keeping only the choice options that everyone will take removing the clearly inferior ones.

Counts as isn't a priority except in terms of the basic philosophy of letting the player decide.

The definition of "count as" codex play maybe a little different for you than for me. "Count as" is when you use the rule of a codex book to represent an army other than the fluff or title entails. This could be as minor as a Dark Angel player using the core space marine book or as major as standing in a squat army by using a marine or IG codex. So my point is you can't plan a codex around what people may do that goes beyond the core concept of a codex; you know they will but you don't compromise a codex's integrity for it. The extent of letting players decide comes into play in the way I've laid out the codex by allowing them to decide either to have a pure chamber militant force, a chamber militant force tied to an inquisitor, or two chamber militant forces working in conjunction.

JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm willing to accept a little redunancy, as it's OK to have a little competition. For reference, go look at my version. How much redundancy is there? And how much problem is there with it if one is building a 1500-pt list with a standard FOC?

I have a ton of Elites in my list, and a bunch of mostly generics elsewhere. No problem or disagreement.

You've stripped all uniqueness and spirit from the branches of the inquisition. You removed too much of the character from this army. The inquisition can stand on its own without the inclusion of the number of non-inquisition units you have included. You've eliminated redundancy by eliminating flavorful units; I've eliminated redundancy by adding structure. Given the two choices I take allowing people more units to choose from even if they don't get access to all units.

When I say elite specialized task force that doesn't mean it has a lot of elite units to choose from. It means every time an ordo of the inquisition mobilizes to fight it is against a specific enemy: alien, psychic, daemonic (the same way US Delta Force is used in counter-terrorist and rescue missions). A open codex removes any sense that this sort of specialized force is even necessary. With all the threats to the imperium it would be a waste to send specialized troops on a mission other than the one they're intended for. Inquisition armies are basically an army of head hunters going after a very particular target; so while multiple chamber militants would be in a given theater of war it would be very rare that they'd have the same target and decide to attack it using a compatible approach.

Also your codex lacks thought as far as representing the Ordo Xenos; I know its the vaguest established and hardest to make up as it has no pre-established units beyond the DW kill team, but there would undoubtedly be more than just DW kill teams.

My design philosophy is that the fluff should come first and be a basis for a codex's rules, use rules to balance fluff. Your approach to codex building is rules first holistic balance irregardless of fluff, fluff be damned.

JohnHwangDD wrote: Powergamer players will do that anyways, so what should it matter? When Chaos had 1 list per Legion, players gravitated to a mere 3 lists (Iron Warriors, Daemonbomb, and Infiltrators). And if you look at CSM right now, it appears that GW got 80 to 90% of the list correct (only 3 problem units by consensus). That's a much better ratio compared to what came before (only 3 viable builds by consensus).

An open list only needs to balance the one list. With your unlocking, you need to balance 6 solo lists, along with 30 dual-combination lists, *and* make them all equally playable and attractive. Most likely, with the unlocking business, there will be one dominant mono build, 2 good blends, and nothing else played. So over half the work is wasted making units and options that don't ever get used.

Just because powergamers will do their best to find an undue advantage does not mean you don't make an attempt to curtail it. When Chaos had that list I played a Bezerkers army and a Noise Marine Army and I still won; I have little pitty for the unimaginative powergamers driven to win in a way that shortly and surely saps the game of fun.

I've gotten the list down to 26 units. If you make the list balanced as a single list the fluffish bookends structure separating each Ordo won't impede that balance when you sub-divide the list. It may harm viability, but that is where one tweaks units to compensate.

Have you read my updated list? I read your list. I reduced the distinctions on the Inquisitor making him a unit that no longer has as grand an impact on the army as a whole; he only impacts one other unit now. I don't understand where you get 30 list combinations from. I get 8 combinations, inquisitor and generic troops always available, SoB+Inq. DW+Inq, GK+Inq, SoB+GK, Sob+DW, GK+DW (I don't count GK, SoB, or DW by themselves because you can always take the standard inquisition units and inquisitor, whether you choose to or not is your own prerogative). I originally wanted to exclude mixing Chamber Millitants, which would have brought it down to 4 combinations, you objected at that being too restrictive and I agreed on the basis that flexibilty should be included to represent the very rare cases of cooperation. 4, 8, 30 combinations if the units are fair for their point value the army will be balanced.

The viability of combination unlockable armylist need only be made by providing at least one basic option available to the whole army in each FOC and to each chamber militant.

@aka_mythos

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, I wasn't meaning that you *should* have a single list with everything in (quite the oppposite, in fact - I agree with you on the whole 'unlocking' thing )

What I was saying was that if/when GW write Codex:Inquisition, they'll do what they did with chaos and make one list that lets you take everything.
It throws out all the fluff in favour of letting people do what they want.

The issue I have with this is that with Chaos, its virtually impossible to have a competetive single-power build (for either CSM or Daemons). I worry that when they do Inquisition, my Sisters/Witchhunters will be totally nerfed unless I do some weird power combos with different Ordos.


My preference would be for 4 lists in the book. One for each Chamber Militant (with the priests/arco-flags/pen engines included as SoB options) and an Inquisition list with Inquisitors, Assassins, Stormtroopers, Arbites and a 'special option' elites choice based on the Ordo of the Inquisitor (Daemonhosts, Xenos Scouts, or Rogue Psykers).

After picking your Ordo, you could then chose from the Inquistion list and the appropriate Chamber Militant list (unless you picked the special elites).

In effect, the lists would function exactly as the present, seperate Codices do, but with everything updated and compiled into one book.

* I think Kid-Kyoto's is still the most representative of an Inquisitorial Army. The different 'paths' based on your HQ makes a lot of sense.
* All the other 'counts as' lists, ideas about 'upgrading' dreadnoughts into penitent engines etc, make things confusing.
* The 'number of units' issue is a moot point as, aka_mythos points out, the finished army would have a very resonable unit selection.
* Games Workshop are moving away from systems like 'Traits' to customise an army. They tend to prefer rules that say 'IF you take this HQ, you can take these squads' nowadays. So I'd say no to Hereticus/Xenos/Malleus specialisations for the Inquisitors - the way you represent this is by choosing a Grey Knight/Sisters/Deathwatch HQ unit.
* I agree we should cut out Allied SMs and IG. This thing can be represented by taking an Inquisitor, and limited other units, in your IG or SM army. Maybe SM and IG armies can include 1 HQ, 1 Elite and 2 Troops from any one of the 'paths'
* I think Assassins should be contained to the Inquisitor path
* Deathwatch, by their fluff, are a single, elite sort of unit. I could see a reason for a hvy weapon squad, or an assault sqd, but not much more than that.

I would, however, cut down the options in Kid_Kyoto's list. It's extremely unlikely that we will see Rogue Traders & Alien Squads, never mind Ad.Mech, Robots and some of the other crazy things people have suggested. So the list would be more like

HQ - GK Master
Elite - GK terminators
Troops - GK squads and varients
Heavy - GK dread and land raiders

HQ - Cannoness
Elite - Celsetines
Troops - Battle sisters
Fast - Seraphim
Heavy - Retributor
Heavy - Exorcist

HQ - Inquisitor
Elite - Interrogator (less powerful inquisitor - this is supported fluff-wise by many of the BL Ravenor/Eisenhorn books)
Elite - Assassins
Elite - Death cultists
Elite - Daemon Hosts
Troops - Inquisition Storm troops

HQ - Priest
Troops - Zealots
Fast - Arco-Flagellants
Heavy - Penitant Engine

HQ - Death Watch Commander
Elite - Death watch Assault/heavy?
Troops - Death Watch

(and I REALLY doubt this will happen, but)
HQ - Arbites General
Elite - Arbites with mauls/supression shields
Troops - Arbites with shot guns/boltguns

Special Characters
Hereticus Inquistor
Malleus Inquisitor
Xenos Inquisitor
Alien Squad
Rogue Trader
Arbitor Judge (only way you can take Arbites??)

Chimera_Calvin wrote:@aka_mythos
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear, I wasn't meaning that you *should* have a single list with everything in (quite the oppposite, in fact - I agree with you on the whole 'unlocking' thing )

What I was saying was that if/when GW write Codex:Inquisition, they'll do what they did with chaos and make one list that lets you take everything.
It throws out all the fluff in favour of letting people do what they want.

The issue I have with this is that with Chaos, its virtually impossible to have a competetive single-power build (for either CSM or Daemons). I worry that when they do Inquisition, my Sisters/Witchhunters will be totally nerfed unless I do some weird power combos with different Ordos.

I really hated what they did with chaos, my armies are shelved. I agree, with single unified lists you are more inclined to have to power build, but when the army is powerbuilt off a single unified list its going to create some big holes for fighting specific armies.

The 4 list approach I think works for the inquisition because unlike chaos by choosing a particular faction you end up making trade offs where you get their benefits and their downsides. In a combination list you might be able to mitigate it, though to what degree should be restricted. The unfair problem with 4th ed Chaos codex, with separate legion rules, it effectively added 7 or 8 extra units, one or so to each legion. That extra unit wasn't a fault but the number of legions while fluffy were excessive causing an option overload. 4 small core variations to unit choices is not by any means going to do the same.

The only conceivable way to unify all the lists into an locked single list, is if they keep DW a single choice, return GK to a single unit, make SoB a single unit that are each overpowered elites that don't have specific corresponding troop components. That would make every, GK and SoB player annoyed. GW appears to be insistent on not removing units or eliminating armies a consolidation by any other means than a 4 list in one system would effectively do both. There in lie my worries but also why I believe GW won't take a single core list approach; that approach would require they toss out a number of units that already have models and that at best would bring in units from the IG and SM (something I think ridiculous).

The big question becomes: Do you make the list GW would make or the list people would want to play?

Chimera_Calvin wrote:My preference would be for 4 lists in the book. One for each Chamber Militant (with the priests/arco-flags/pen engines included as SoB options) and an Inquisition list with Inquisitors, Assassins, Stormtroopers, Arbites and a 'special option' elites choice based on the Ordo of the Inquisitor (Daemonhosts, Xenos Scouts, or Rogue Psykers).

After picking your Ordo, you could then chose from the Inquistion list and the appropriate Chamber Militant list (unless you picked the special elites).

In effect, the lists would function exactly as the present, seperate Codices do, but with everything updated and compiled into one book.

Yay, someone gets it. Thats what I was trying to do.

I think by tying in the 'special option' elite into the inquisitor it gives it the permission to be more deadly or extra unorthodox, than those units current incarnations are. Still think archo-flagelants if tweaked could be the 'special option' for Ordo Hereticus.

I think the biggest reason we're more likely to see a codex with semi-separate army lists is because unlike chaos, theres is no one all unifying Unit and box set that is distinctively Inquisition that would work with all chamber militant. All chaos armies need a box of "Chaos Space Marines" not all inquisition armies are not gonna contain GK, SoB, or DW. So unless GW shifts their emphasis of this army away from the chamber militant, the Codex: Inquisition will likely retain some separation between Ordos.

aka_mythos wrote:The big question becomes: Do you make the list GW would make or the list people would want to play?

The answer to that is easy: The one that people would want to play.

This is a proposed rules forum, not a 'what do we think GW will do with this' forum. So you can either take the approach John takes and try to make a list that allows for 'counts as' and compensates for bad players and power gamers (ie. the exact opposite of how you design a Codex - seriously, who includes the posibility for 'counts as' lists in their design goals?), or you make a list that fits with the fluff and contains a useful selection of units that allow for variety, fun, modelling opportunities and in-game power - hopefully striking a balance that allows all units to be both fluffy and useful at the same time.

GW has failed at this every opportunity, party because they have no single vision and they're a bunch of people all designing things for themselves, and partly because, due to business reasons, they have to make newer models better and older models less competative, so as to drive sales. However we have no such constraints, and as this is a proposed rules forum, we should do just that - propose rules and not second guess what GW might do.

BYE

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I'm willing to accept a little redunancy, as it's OK to have a little competition. For reference, go look at my version.

You've stripped all uniqueness and spirit from the branches of the inquisition.

My design philosophy is that the fluff should come first and be a basis for a codex's rules, use rules to balance fluff. Your approach to codex building is rules first holistic balance irregardless of fluff, fluff be damned.

JohnHwangDD wrote:An open list only needs to balance the one list. With your unlocking, you need to balance 6 solo lists, along with 30 dual-combination lists, *and* make them all equally playable and attractive.

I don't understand where you get 30 list combinations from.

As I noted before, this is like CSM 4 Legions vs "unified" CSM 5. You guys are going for what amounts to Legions lists, as you wish GW would have done things at the height of the detailed Codex period. I am going for a unified Codex, as I expect GW will do things with the streamlined Codices. This is a fundamental philosophical disagreement that cannot be reconciled, but will make itself clear when / if GW finally gets around to doing the (unified) Inquisition Codex.

At this point, I no longer care about the Fluff details per se. GW has revised and reversed their Fluff so many times, it can largely be ignored except as broad inspiration. That is, GW places the Fluff details subordinate to whatever rules strike their fancy at any given point in time.

For my 30 combinations, I count each Ordo (Malleus, Hereticus, Xenos) separately, and look at the various primary / secondary options:
- Malleus primary; hereticus / xenos / greyknights / sisters / deathwatch secondary
- Hereticus primary; malleus / xenos / greyknights / sisters / deathwatch secondary
and so on down the line.

And FWIW, I see a lot of GW-ish "we know better than you do" in this whole locked list business. If GW can let things open up, you should, too.
____

aka_mythos wrote:
I really hated what they did with chaos, my armies are shelved.

The big question becomes: Do you make the list GW would make or the list people would want to play?

I think the biggest reason we're more likely to see a codex with semi-separate army lists is because unlike chaos, theres is no one all unifying Unit and box set that is distinctively Inquisition that would work with all chamber militant. All chaos armies need a box of "Chaos Space Marines"

And I loved it. I'm finally restarting Chaos, because I can build the army that I want to build, and make it competitive. Rather than having to pick one of GW's armies and choose between having it be competitive (e.g. Iron Warriors) or enjoyable (i.e. vanilla).

Given that I didn't want to play GW's Legions, and want to play the new Chaos, the answer is pretty clear for me.

That's kind of an interesting argument, as GW can easily change things to require all Inquisition forces to take the new plastic Inquisitional Stormtroopers as Troops...

As a codex build you got to stay true to the core concept. I don't believe John's list does. If you want to play a count as army using a non-GW built list why not just make another list for that other army, the way you want it.

John has said that his list is built around the concepts "like the current Chaos Marine Codex," stating his intent to build what is effectively a codex modeled after a flawed GW codex. So why are we going down a road that almost everyone knows is wrong, by imitating that codex?

I personally feel large aspect of the current codex are spot on, but to homogenize the list as was done with the chaos space marines throws half of the good out the window and the only thing gained is the fact that you can now do something very much out of character, mixing and matching intrinsically dissimilar and unassociated units. It makes as much sense as giving space marines the option to take guardsmen.

Its also important to realize where Chaos Space Marines was one book and always has through every incarnation the inquisition will not have been. A combined list that throws out half the units disassociates the majority of people using it.

That diametric issue at hand: Are the gains of a mix and match list going to out way the losses of the abilities each army had separately? Are Inquisitor Armies on a whole more Delta Force or more G.I. JOE, specialized or jacks of all trades masters of none? Which seems more in character to the ordos?

JohnHwangDD wrote:At this point, I no longer care about the Fluff details per se. GW has revised and reversed their Fluff so many times, it can largely be ignored except as broad inspiration. That is, GW places the Fluff details subordinate to whatever rules strike their fancy at any given point in time.

For my 30 combinations, I count each Ordo (Malleus, Hereticus, Xenos) separately, and look at the various primary / secondary options:
- Malleus primary; hereticus / xenos / greyknights / sisters / deathwatch secondary
- Hereticus primary; malleus / xenos / greyknights / sisters / deathwatch secondary
and so on down the line.

And FWIW, I see a lot of GW-ish "we know better than you do" in this whole locked list business. If GW can let things open up, you should, too.

The fluff for the Inquisition has remained pretty consistent. When GW wrote the "Inquisitor" game they spent alot of time establishing the fluff for the Inquisition, it has remained consistent since then and that game was the impetus for the Inquisition codices. Fluff motivates structure and form, rules balance that out.

The thing is you seem to have the mind set of following GW by following the flawed concepts of the Chaos Space Marine Codex, that only lets you play renegade marines, pirate groups and not so much the ominous darkness spewing from the eye of terror.


You analysis of 30 combinations isn't fair. Like I said, my list is set with the inquisitor only impacting one other unit "Deviates" beyond that they don't impact the army.

-A person can always take the core units of the Inquisition, attempting to play without chamber millitants (1 Combo). Changing inquisitors Ordo does NOT impact the army just one of the core units upgrade.

-Choosing to play with a Chamber militant (DW+Inq, GK+Inq, SoB+Inq) does not preclude or prevent a person from taking core units, choosing a chamber militant adds to the core list without restrictions (3 Combos). Choosing to play as a pure chamber militant becomes a decision made by the player that may choose to use as little of the core list as they choose, but this means balancing is done with the intention that the Chamber Militant use some even if only a few of the core units (thus an army fielding just from the 4 or 5 Chamber Militant specific unlockables, isn't intended to be viable by themselves).

-A player may choose to play as two ordos working in conjunction (Inq+SoB+GK, Inq+Sob+DW, Inq+GK+DW) (3 Combos)

7 basic combos configurations. Having an inquisitor that modifies a single unit entry does not 30 combinations make. Extra attention can be given to that single unit, balancing them point wise, but to say that a limited elite choice (probably 0-1 or 0-2) is going to create that many combinations that will each independent of each other require balancing, is pure unadulterated hyperbole.

aka_mythos wrote:John has said that his list is built around the concepts "like the current Chaos Marine Codex," stating his intent to build what is effectively a codex modeled after a flawed GW codex. So why are we going down a road that almost everyone knows is wrong, by imitating that codex?

IMO, the fundamental flaw in the reasoning is the idea that the new Chaos book is "flawed".

You can do a lot more interesting things with the new Chaos book, and nothing stops a player from fielding a tightly-themed mono-Power force. Similarly, a combined Inquisition book would open more options, while not denying any player from fielding a "pure" Ordo / Chamber force.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:John has said that his list is built around the concepts "like the current Chaos Marine Codex," stating his intent to build what is effectively a codex modeled after a flawed GW codex. So why are we going down a road that almost everyone knows is wrong, by imitating that codex?

IMO, the fundamental flaw in the reasoning is the idea that the new Chaos book is "flawed".

You can do a lot more interesting things with the new Chaos book, and nothing stops a player from fielding a tightly-themed mono-Power force. Similarly, a combined Inquisition book would open more options, while not denying any player from fielding a "pure" Ordo / Chamber force.

Once again the inquisition is a tightly structured force specialized force of semi-limited resources. There are more than 1,000,000 Chaos Marines in the galaxy. There are 1000 Grey Knights, there are in the 100,000's of SoB, and there are 1000 Deathwatch. Each deals with a specific tinge of Chaos, acting on the battle field, amongst all the other imperial armies, as the headhunters going after a specific type of Chaos, mixing them and co-mingling them would create a scenario of diminished returns where bout the sum of the units is less than the components. Codex Chaos Represent 1000's of battle groups, the inquisition is 10 or so GK groups, 100 or so SoB groups, and 100 DW kill teams.

A mono-themes power force in the Chaos Space Marine Codex is basic Chaos Space Marines with little chaos mark given out like certificates of participation. Plague marine, Khorne Bezerkers, Noise Marines, and Thousand Sons can no longer be played as the primary component of those forces. No more thought was given to the 10,000 or so Khorne Bezerkers as was to a terminator. They are just another unit now. So if you want to see what happen to those armies when they were downgraded by the new codex then the same approach can be taken for the Inquisition. Otherwise the insistence of downgrading two armies currently fully supported independent forces down to mere combat force elements are going to ruin two standing armies. The key difference between Chaos Space Marines and the Inquisition, those chaos force have always been sub-codex lists in a single book, they never had independent army books. You'd be bringing the Inquisition down from their positions of being elite special forces just to do some "more interesting things."

I'd like to hear what Kid_Kyoto thinks of some of the ideas banged around, this is ultimately his personal project.

Updated my list to trim, merge, and cut down some other units. Sitting pretty at 25 unit entries at the moment (not including transports or special characters):


===HQ===
0-1 Inquisitor
0-1 Grey Knight Hero
0-1 Deathwatch Hero
0-1 Battle Sister Heroine
0-5 Priests
- Do not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

===ELITES===
Interrogator
Assassin
- Must have an Interrogator or Inquisitor present in your army to use.
Death-cult Assassin
- Must have an Inquisitor present in your army to use.
0-1 Radical Squad
- Must have an Inquisitor present in your army to use.
- Daemonhosts: Requires your Inquisitor Lord to have Seal of the Daemonhunter. If you
take Daemonhosts you may not take any Grey Knight units.
- Alpha Psykers: Requires your Inquisitor Lord to have Seal of the Witch Hunter. If you
take Alpha Psykers you may not take any Battle Sister units.
- Xenos Squad: Requires your Inquisitor Lord to have Seal of the Alien Hunter. If you
take a Xenos Squad you may not take any Deathwatch units.
Grey Knights
- Count as Troops if you have a Grey Knight Hero in your army.
- If you have a Grey Knight Hero in your army, you may upgrade squads of Grey Knights
to Grey Knight Purgation Squads. These squads count as Heavy Support choices.[/i]
Grey Knight Veterans
- Cannot be taken unless you have a Grey Knight Hero in your army.
- May be upgraded to Grey Knight Terminators.
Deathwatch Kill Team
- Count as Troops if you have a Deathwatch Hero in your army.
- If you have a Deathwatch Hero in your army, you may upgrade squads of Deathwatch
Kill Teams to Deathwatch Annihilus Squads. These squads count as Heavy Support
choices.
Deathwatch Veterans
- Cannot be taken unless you have a Deathwatch Hero in your army.
- May be upgraded to Deathwatch Terminators.
Battle Sisters
- Count as Troops if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.
- If you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army, you may upgrade squads of Battle
Sisters to Battle Sister Retributors. These squads count as Heavy Support choices.
Battle Sister Celestines
- Cannot be taken unless you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.
- May be upgraded to Battle Sister Seraphims.

===TROOPS===
Inquisitorial Storm Troopers

===FAST ATTACK===
Arco-flagellants
- May only be taken if you have a Priest present in the army.
Sisters Repentia
- May only be taken if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in the army.

===HEAVY SUPPORT===
0-1 Orbital Strike
- May only be taken if you have an Inquisitor Lord in the army.
Penitent Engine
- May only be taken if you have a Priest present in the army.
Dreadnought
- May only be taken if you have a Grey Knight Hero or Deathwatch Hero in your army.
Land Raider
- May only be taken if you have a Grey Knight Hero or Deathwatch Hero in your army.
Land Raider Crusader
- May only be taken if you have a Grey Knight Hero or Deathwatch Hero in your army.
Immolator
- May only be taken if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.
Exorcist
- May only be taken if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.




EDIT: I also had another idea that was fairly Chaos Mark-esque (called Seals). Basically an Inquisitor could take a Seal and have access to certain units. For example, if an Inquisitor took a Seal of the Daemonhunter he could take Grey Knights as Troops and upgrade them for Purgation Squads, but would still not be able to take the Veterans/Terminators.

I like your list Marik, I think its a good middle ground approach. Allows basic mixing, but not full blown open list.

I like the idea of the Ordo-mark, giving an increased though limited access to basic chamber militant units is good, but I think the upgrade should be limited only to the troop and not the upgraded squad. One squad is an Inquisitor getting assistance, two different squads and you'd have mission force that would demand a commander within their direct chain of command to coordinate.

I think ordo-marks or seals should just give the inquisitor an his retinue the appropriate "preferred enemy" enemy rule, I also think that with each of the Witchhunter and Daemonhunter Codex the retinue has a couple of distinctive entries, those should also be tied to the Ordo seal.

Another note you'd want to add is that, if the troop choice units take transports they are considered fast attack. Otherwise you may want to consider some addition to the list.

I said this before and you may want to consider it, to free up the FOC: in the new space marine codex, the commander gets the "Orbital Strike" as an ability that doesn't require any upgrade. It might be an idea to do something similar; also in the new codex the Land Raider Crusader, the Land Raider Redeemer (which I think makes sense for inquisition), and the basic land raider are all one entry, where the two variants are now upgrades and the pintel mounted multi-melta is available to all three.

I think the land raider should be generally accessible to an inquisitor. Otherwise something other than "Orbital Strike" may be needed
Making orbital strike a power of the inquisitor and not on the FOC maybe enough of a trade off to to the Chamber Militant heroes, I have the concern that the Inquisitor may not be taken if the benefits to taking two Chamber militant heroes exceed what he brings.

One thought I have is with a mixed list how do the different special rules come into play? I think there might be a bit of special rules over load for a mixed list containing DW,GK,and SoB; each requires a full page of special rules in their current form.
What are your thoughts on the different "special rules" for GK and SoB that appear in their codices?
Do you think they should remain as is? If so what new can DW bring in the same vein?
If you think they should change how would you?

Tacobake wrote:How about this.

Elite Inquisitor is just an 'Inquisitor'. Or Junior Inquisitor. You can make him something specific fluff-wise if you want.

Troop:
GK, Battle Sisters and Storm Troopers always available. It is up to you to define fluff why they would be fighting together. You can do it now using allies anyway.

After that you need HQ choices or Elite Inquisitor wargear to requisition units. Including Heavy Support. Also, maybe tie GK dreads to # of GK squads to provide anti-tank. Ditto LR.

IMHO, Inquisitors and Stormtroopers should always be available, Dethwatch, Grey Knights and Sisters of Battle should be pick one or the other, but not two or all three at once. Taking GK means no DW, taking SoB means no GK etc. Inducted troops should always be available at current Codex Ordo Malleus/Hereticus levels, without requiring HQs. Having certain HQ choices unlock certain other choices is a good idea, but GK, DW and SoB should all be line-troops, and you would decide if your force was Ordo Xenos, Maleus or Hereticus by picking on of hose three options.


Personally, I think making one Inquisition Codex is a bad idea, as you will either have to have way to much going on or else leave incredibly characterful and cool units behind to make the list more manageable.

If that's the only way you are getting a new Inquisition Codex it's better than nothing, but mashing them all together is pretty lame. That's why I made the suggestions I did, to try and maintain something of a uniqueness to the three Ordos instead of making them all more bland to work together better.

It's a pretty tough call, because looking at it from a developer's perspective, you want people to have a reason to take the models you are trying to sell, and if all these options are in one Codex, you have to make sure there is incentive to keep certain ranges selling. For example, the Witch Hunters are an entirely Anti-Psychic force, in theory. But when is that going to be more useful than either Anti-Chaos or Anti-Alien? So you would have to either tie a few choices to the Ordo Hereticus tree in order to make them more appealing, or just hope people are attracted enough to the background and models to take Ordo Hereticus forces.

Or, just mash them all together in a big cheesy mess that really doesn't fit in with the character or background of the forces, but which will guarantee model sales and up combat effectiveness enough to make people complain and buy simultaneously, but not enough to guarantee balance and long-term effectiveness. Not that GW would ever do something like that...

Marik Law wrote:Updated my list to trim, merge, and cut down some other units. Sitting pretty at 25 unit entries at the moment (not including transports or special characters):


===HQ===
0-1 Inquisitor
0-1 Grey Knight Hero
0-1 Deathwatch Hero
0-1 Battle Sister Heroine
0-5 Priests
- Do not take up a slot on the force organization chart.

===ELITES===
Interrogator
Assassin
- Must have an Interrogator or Inquisitor present in your army to use.
Death-cult Assassin
- Must have an Inquisitor present in your army to use.
0-1 Radical Squad
- Must have an Inquisitor present in your army to use.
- Daemonhosts: Requires your Inquisitor Lord to have Seal of the Daemonhunter. If you
take Daemonhosts you may not take any Grey Knight units.
- Alpha Psykers: Requires your Inquisitor Lord to have Seal of the Witch Hunter. If you
take Alpha Psykers you may not take any Battle Sister units.
- Xenos Squad: Requires your Inquisitor Lord to have Seal of the Alien Hunter. If you
take a Xenos Squad you may not take any Deathwatch units.
Grey Knights
- Count as Troops if you have a Grey Knight Hero in your army.
- If you have a Grey Knight Hero in your army, you may upgrade squads of Grey Knights
to Grey Knight Purgation Squads. These squads count as Heavy Support choices.[/i]
Grey Knight Veterans
- Cannot be taken unless you have a Grey Knight Hero in your army.
- May be upgraded to Grey Knight Terminators.
Deathwatch Kill Team
- Count as Troops if you have a Deathwatch Hero in your army.
- If you have a Deathwatch Hero in your army, you may upgrade squads of Deathwatch
Kill Teams to Deathwatch Annihilus Squads. These squads count as Heavy Support
choices.
Deathwatch Veterans
- Cannot be taken unless you have a Deathwatch Hero in your army.
- May be upgraded to Deathwatch Terminators.
Battle Sisters
- Count as Troops if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.
- If you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army, you may upgrade squads of Battle
Sisters to Battle Sister Retributors. These squads count as Heavy Support choices.
Battle Sister Celestines
- Cannot be taken unless you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.
- May be upgraded to Battle Sister Seraphims.

===TROOPS===
Inquisitorial Storm Troopers

===FAST ATTACK===
Arco-flagellants
- May only be taken if you have a Priest present in the army.
Sisters Repentia
- May only be taken if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in the army.

===HEAVY SUPPORT===
0-1 Orbital Strike
- May only be taken if you have an Inquisitor Lord in the army.
Penitent Engine
- May only be taken if you have a Priest present in the army.
Dreadnought
- May only be taken if you have a Grey Knight Hero or Deathwatch Hero in your army.
Land Raider
- May only be taken if you have a Grey Knight Hero or Deathwatch Hero in your army.
Land Raider Crusader
- May only be taken if you have a Grey Knight Hero or Deathwatch Hero in your army.
Immolator
- May only be taken if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.
Exorcist
- May only be taken if you have a Battle Sister Heroine in your army.




EDIT: I also had another idea that was fairly Chaos Mark-esque (called Seals). Basically an Inquisitor could take a Seal and have access to certain units. For example, if an Inquisitor took a Seal of the Daemonhunter he could take Grey Knights as Troops and upgrade them for Purgation Squads, but would still not be able to take the Veterans/Terminators.

I like this a lot, the way the forces are broken up looks quite good to me and the seals are a nice touch. The only thing I can think of would be to add in a completely new unit or two that is generic, instead of having Storm Troopers as the only base-line unit. I can't imagine what. The only other issue I could imagine is all the unlockables being confusing to noobs, although it doesn't seem much more confusing than dealing with Marks of Chaos.

I've been toying with new unit ideas. Oddly some interesting ideas coming out of an anime I saw recently (Trinity Blood), which focuses around a futuristic Vatican that has similarities to the Inquisition in 40k. They use what I can only refer to as halberd-like "Power Mauls".

Once I can get this all figured out I will made a mock Codex for everyone.

LargeAngryGoff wrote:

EDIT: I also had another idea that was fairly Chaos Mark-esque (called Seals). Basically an Inquisitor could take a Seal and have access to certain units. For example, if an Inquisitor took a Seal of the Daemonhunter he could take Grey Knights as Troops and upgrade them for Purgation Squads, but would still not be able to take the Veterans/Terminators.

I like this a lot, the way the forces are broken up looks quite good to me and the seals are a nice touch. The only thing I can think of would be to add in a completely new unit or two that is generic, instead of having Storm Troopers as the only base-line unit. I can't imagine what. The only other issue I could imagine is all the unlockables being confusing to noobs, although it doesn't seem much more confusing than dealing with Marks of Chaos.

Marik Law wrote:Updated my list to trim, merge, and cut down some other units. Sitting pretty at 25 unit entries at the moment (not including transports or special characters):

===ELITES===
XXX
- Count as Troops if you have YYY

===TROOPS===
Inquisitorial Storm Troopers

This is a very impressively good job of converting Inquisition to follow the original 3rd Edition Chaos Codex. Given that we're two Chaos Codices past that design approach, I kind of like to doubt that GW would go backwards like that. But you never know...

From a design standpoint, the unit type upgrades and pick one bump your unit counts to an effective 35 or so. IMO, that seems like a bit too many. Perhaps I'll take another cut at things later, but I think a reasonable design goal might be a maximum of 30 entries including Transports.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Marik Law wrote:Updated my list to trim, merge, and cut down some other units. Sitting pretty at 25 unit entries at the moment (not including transports or special characters):

===ELITES===
XXX
- Count as Troops if you have YYY

===TROOPS===
Inquisitorial Storm Troopers

This is a very impressively good job of converting Inquisition to follow the original 3rd Edition Chaos Codex. Given that we're two Chaos Codices past that design approach, I kind of like to doubt that GW would go backwards like that. But you never know...

From a design standpoint, the unit type upgrades and pick one bump your unit counts to an effective 35 or so. IMO, that seems like a bit too many. Perhaps I'll take another cut at things later, but I think a reasonable design goal might be a maximum of 30 entries including Transports.

The approach of allowing the squad to be an elite without a commander and a troop if one is included works.

John your counting method is so arbitrary. In the new space marine codex bike armies are suppose to work in a similar way, does that mean the space marine army actually has 26 units... because bikes can be troops. Vanguard squads can be upgraded to another type unit? I guess in your line of thinking the three landraiders even as a one entry is three separate units? Oh and I guess the three landspeeders in one entry are also separate units too. Making 32 units in the new codex space marines + 3 transports +13 Special Characters. So lets just be fair. Its a good list and the limitations in the structure of the list really make it all moot.

EDIT: Make that 33 units in the new Codex, Techmarine with the Thunderflare becomes a Heavy Support Unit.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Marik Law wrote:Updated my list to trim, merge, and cut down some other units. Sitting pretty at 25 unit entries at the moment (not including transports or special characters):

===ELITES===
XXX
- Count as Troops if you have YYY

===TROOPS===
Inquisitorial Storm Troopers

This is a very impressively good job of converting Inquisition to follow the original 3rd Edition Chaos Codex. Given that we're two Chaos Codices past that design approach, I kind of like to doubt that GW would go backwards like that. But you never know...

From a design standpoint, the unit type upgrades and pick one bump your unit counts to an effective 35 or so. IMO, that seems like a bit too many. Perhaps I'll take another cut at things later, but I think a reasonable design goal might be a maximum of 30 entries including Transports.

As I said, I'm still working out the kinks, but to be fair in order to cram all three into one Codex without having redundant units we need to take certain things into account, either that or make a fairly bland Codex that nobody is going to like (from a gaming and fluff standpoint).

The main problem is playtesting whether or not having Battle Sisters, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch Kill Teams as Troops alongside Inquisitorial Storm Troopers is a good idea or not. We also have to remember that this is an Inquisitorial list, so in my mind the Battle Sisters, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch are specialty forces the Inquisitors call on when they need to. Larger forces, like those that include Terminators, Dreadnoughts, Veterans, etc, would definitely require the presence of a larger force, such as one lead by a "Hero" (so to speak).

Marik Law wrote: As I said, I'm still working out the kinks, but to be fair in order to cram all three into one Codex without having redundant units we need to take certain things into account, either that or make a fairly bland Codex that nobody is going to like (from a gaming and fluff standpoint).

The main problem is playtesting whether or not having Battle Sisters, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch Kill Teams as Troops alongside Inquisitorial Storm Troopers is a good idea or not. We also have to remember that this is an Inquisitorial list, so in my mind the Battle Sisters, Grey Knights, and Deathwatch are specialty forces the Inquisitors call on when they need to. Larger forces, like those that include Terminators, Dreadnoughts, Veterans, etc, would definitely require the presence of a larger force, such as one lead by a "Hero" (so to speak).

I agree with you on that point. In any force other than a SoB, GK, or DW army, there basic units only make sense as elite assets; I think you got it right.

Remember guys, whatever John says, or no matter how boring he wants to be by sticking whatever his Lord and Masters at GWHQ do, this is a Proposed Rules forum, so propose what you like.

BYE

Marik Law wrote:I've been toying with new unit ideas. Oddly some interesting ideas coming out of an anime I saw recently (Trinity Blood), which focuses around a futuristic Vatican that has similarities to the Inquisition in 40k. They use what I can only refer to as halberd-like "Power Mauls".

Once I can get this all figured out I will made a mock Codex for everyone.

Thinking some more on this idea. The "futuristic" Vatican soldiers are obviously based on the Swiss Guard; the swiss guard were the personal mercenary army of the Pope, now they are a special police force, a unit of the Swiss army out of tradition still loaned out by the Swiss government. Even now as a modern military forces members are trained with the halberd. A unit like this could have the same stat line as Stormtrooper with BS and WS stat switched; a rending close combat weapon (fair since rending got its nerfing) and a 4+ or 5+ inv. save in close combat also being a two handed close combat weapon it could be justified as +1 S.

It definitely creates an interesting close combat troop choice; where stormtroopers can be upgraded to Adeptus Arbite Patrol Teams (shotguns), maybe this close combat squad can be upgraded to Adeptus Arbite Riot Teams (power maul and combat shield).

aka_mythos wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:From a design standpoint, the unit type upgrades and pick one bump your unit counts to an effective 35 or so. IMO, that seems like a bit too many.

John your counting method is so arbitrary.

Not really. For example, I count the Radical Squad as 3 entries, as I see Daemonhosts as totally different from Alpha Psykers or Xenos Squad (i.e. Kroot). Similarly, GK Purgation is very different from ordinary GK, and DW Annihilatus are very different from regular DW. When the unit changes type that much, I think it's effectively a different unit.

Thinking about Codex Inquisition, perhaps I was going about this the wrong way. Similar to how C: CSM has strong focus on the Chaos Marines, Codex: Inquisition should focus on the Inquisitors and their personal resources. Anything else (i.e. Chambers Militant and Inducted forces) should be secondary, and may be handled more akin to generic Lesser Daemons.

That necessarily means that Sisters of Battle would need a stand-alone Codex again, in much the same way that Chaos Daemons now have their own book. It also means that Grey Knights and Deathwatch become much smaller, and don't get fleshed out much further in this book, but similarly implies that Grey Knights would get their own book later. IMO, this is no great loss, as neither Grey Knights nor Deathwatch have been handled very well to date. Yes, the GK got PA versions, which then doubled as FA and HA, but that's all pretty weaksauce for an upgrade, which is why C: DH is a real disaster. It would be much better if GW were to take the time to make a full Codex: Grey Knights, and do it properly.

Thus,

== Codex: Inquisition ==

HQ
Inquisitor w/ 3..9 Retinue
+ Retinue: Stormtrooper/ Servitor, Gun-Servitor, Combat Servitor, Crusader, Daemonhost, Sage/Mystic, Familiar
- Rhino, Chimera, or Land Raider

non-FOC HQ
Grey Knights Captain - units of 10 GK Marines may be taken as non-FOC Troops
- Deep Strike

Deathwatch Librarian - units of 10 DW may be taken as non-FOC Troops

Elite
0-1 Imperial Assassin
- generic (PW & Inferno Pistol) or Temple: Eversor, Vindicare, Callidus, Culexus
- Infiltrate

Death Cult Assassins (1-3)
- Infiltrate

Ogryns (3..10)
+ Chimera

Grey Knights Terminators (Sgt w/ 2..4 Terminators)
- Deep Strike

Grey Knights Marines (Sgt w/ 4..9 Marines)
- Deep Strike

Deathwatch Kill Team (Sgt w/ 4..9 Veterans)
- Rhino or Razorback

Troops
Inquisitional Stormtroopers (5..10)
- Rhino or Razorback

Arco-Flagellants (5..10) - don't count towards compulsory Troops
- Fleet

non-FOC Troops - choose only 1 type
Inducted Guardsmen (10)
+ Chimera

Sisters of Battle (5 to 10)
+ Immolator or Rhino

Seconded Marines (5 to 10)
- Rhino or Razorback

Transport
Rhino
Razorback


Fast
Sentinels (1..3)
- Infiltrate

Battle Engines / Penitient Engines (1..3)
- Fleet

Heavy
Orbital Strike

Gun Servitors (5..10)

Imperial Robots (1..3)
- Slow & Purposeful

Land Raider (Crusader or Redeemer)

This is ~25 units including Retinue and Transports, so there's room to properly detail Inquisitors, each of the Ordos, and the Retinue. Ultimately, every Inquisition force will be led by at least 1 Inquisitor commanding at least 2 units of Stormtroopers. So "Inquisition" would actually be descriptive of whatever force the player takes.

The basic list is fairly minimal, with plenty of opportunity for conversion and "counts as". I've tried to provide close-combat alternatives alongside typical shooting, to allow for a fighty army. Elites are strongly competitive among themselves with lots of options for the player to choose from. I make strong use of the generic Daemon concept pioneered by the current Chaos book to bulk out the HQ and Troops selections, but break it out with a bit more diferentiation. And finally, I bring back one of my favorites from the RT era: Robots - I see these as BS3 AV12/11/10 with 1..2 Heavies and 1..2 DNCCWs.

For Ordo options, I'd have Malleus, Hereticus, Xenos, and Sicarus, with a few Radical options:
- a minor stat / rule bonus (WS, I, etc.),
- access to an Ordo-specific Psychic power,
- access to an Ordo-specific weapon,
- access to an Ordo-specific Retinue option.
For example, Malleus would have access to Thunderhammer, while Radicals would have access to Daemon weapon and Daemonhosts in their Retinue.

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion.

Your counting method is arbitrary because you are drawing distinctions in ways other than they way they're intended.

Also you never answered the fact that with your counting method:
new Codex Space Marines has 33 units + 3 Transports + 13 Characters
Codex Inquisition has "35" units +3 Transports + 6? Characters.

Your method is also arbitrary because ignore simple points of fact that regardless of which commander you choose you could never choose from more than 20 units, while a space marine player can choose from all 33 units.

Seems like over all we'd have fewer options, and going over by two units isn't that bad when an Immolator can be combined with the razorback entry and if the new codex space marine is any indication "Orbital Strike" would be a power attached to an HQ and not a unit.