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.

It kind of makes sense to combine them, but it almost feels like you would be looking at a "Other misc. soldiers in the Empire" codex. I think you would lose the character of all the armies. A case in point is the Tau Empire codex, does anyone care about vespid or kroot fluff? Not really because their isn't much of it due to lack of space in the book (or lack of interest?). What point of view would it be told from? Does GW do equal and fair coverage? Just some thoughts from a CSM only player, so take that into account if I'm totally off base...

If we are wishing on GW anyway, I would wish for separate books. GW has problems enough writing a clear and concise set of rules for one army (Space Wolves anyone?). If they try to cover all three ordos of the inquisition in one book, we'll end up with dumbed down versions for any one pure force. Model releases would also be crappy, as GW would need to bring something out for the sisters, knights and xenos hunters, giving us a taste of everything, and a comprehensive range for nothing.

Regardless of what I want, I don't expect GW to revisit the inquisition anytime soon. If an army is even slightly less popular than marines, guard, eldar, nids or orks, GW will push it back repeatedly and rehash the popular sellers...

EF, you know I love you like a little brother but a fluff master you are not.

Andy Hoare & Graham McNeill wrote:It was at the height of the Reformation that Ordo Hereticus was formed, and it was not long before the two organizations [Witch Hunters and Sisters of Battle] formalised their relationship in a shadowy conclave . . . The Convocation stated that the Ordos Militant of the Adpeta Sororitas would place themselves at the disposal of the Ordo Hereticus whenever called to do so by a duly appointed Inquisitor, forming the Chamber Militant of the Witch Hunters. The Sisterhood would remain under the auspices of the Ecclesiarchy on a day-to-day basis, and retain the rights and responsibilities granted to them by Sebastian Thor. (C:WH p6)

So you see, they are an independent force that can be called upon as allies by the Inquisition just as Space Marines can. Yes, they have a more formalized relationship to the Inquisition than the SM but you're really overstating (in disagreement with canon, as I've just shown you) how close those ties are in practice.

Furthermore, regarding their numbers:

Andy Hoare & Graham McNeill wrote:In time, the Orders Militant grew into large and powerful organizations . . . [the Convents Prioris and Sanctorum were divided into what became the six Orders] . . . By late M36, the Sisters of Battle had become synonymous with the temporal power of the Ecclesiarchy, enforcing its dogma and prosecuting its wars across the galaxy, all the while supporting Ordo Hereticus in their role as Chamber Militant. The Orders spread, establishing subsidiary convents on key worlds across the Imperium . . . As numbers within the Orders Militant waxed and waned, varying from a couple thousand warriors to many thousands, the subsidary convents began to take on importance of their own . . . [and became the Orders Minores] (C:WH p6)

More evidence that the Sisters are primarily the fighting arm of the Ecclesiarchy and also, to a lesser extent, the Chamber Militant of Ordo Hereticus. We also see how even at their lowest historical strength, each Order significantly outnumbers a single Space Marine chapter. I never said anything about them outnumbering all Space Marines but, given that they are no where nearly as difficult to recruit, train, or equip and that we have no upper limit on the size of an Order other than "many thousands," that is perfectly possible.

Please understand that while it takes you mere seconds to write up whatever opinion you have of the fluff, it takes me much longer to prove you wrong by looking up and quoting the canonical sources. Suffice it to say that you can take my word on what I know about my own faction. As 1hadhq is finding over in Background, I also know a heck of a lot about the factions I don't particularly like.

As to turning out codices, I don't really care. I honestly don't care if I have to wait six years or more (as it looks to already be the case) between books if I have a solid book to play in the meantime. I'm no tournament gamer. I just want to be able to field a more interesting and diverse army than is presently possible because I am saddled with units that do not work well enough (or, in some cases, even seem to be designed to work) with the Sisters.

Please understand that while it takes you mere seconds to write up whatever opinion you have of the fluff, it takes me much longer to prove you wrong by looking up and quoting the canonical sources. Suffice it to say that you can take my word on what I know about my own faction. As 1hadhq is finding over in Background, I also know a heck of a lot about the factions I don't particularly like.

Aw nuts. You made me feel bad.
Very well, I'll not question your Mastery over fluff. (geez, all it took was a couple of quotes to shoot that out of the water.)

TBH I've never collected the sisters when they had thier exclusive codex, and so seeing them in a Witch Hunter army has over time just come naturally to me.

As to turning out codices, I don't really care. I honestly don't care if I have to wait six years or more (as it looks to already be the case) between books if I have a solid book to play in the meantime. I'm no tournament gamer. I just want to be able to field a more interesting and diverse army than is presently possible because I am saddled with units that do not work well enough (or, in some cases, even seem to be designed to work) with the Sisters.

You still have not offered a proper explanation as to why you are so opposed to a single dex that still allows SoB units to be run as a pure army (which is indeed possible with the current dex).

To me it seems that your solution would only please the most die-hard SoB fans (including yourself.) A sister only codex would only exclude them more, and they would attract very few new players, and those that do include them in thier armies may not see it as worth the effort to go all out in a sister only army.

If I might pose a question here. If you think that Sisters of Battle deserve thier own codex, do you also believe that Grey Knights should have thier own codex? Basically they have the same role and relationship to thier respective ordos.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You still have not offered a proper explanation as to why you are so opposed to a single dex that still allows SoB units to be run as a pure army (which is indeed possible with the current dex).

Yes, it is technically possible. But it frustrating. It is restrictive. It is not coherent at all. Your view of C:WH is what I think Hoare and McNeill envisioned rules-wise--namely, that the fans would want to play an Inquisitor after reading the Eisenhorn books. So in their minds (and I think yours also, but you may confirm or deny) the Inquisitor was the core of the army. You picked a Lord or Regular Inquisitor and went from their. Sisters were therefore incidental. But--whoops!--they had forgotten that Ordo Hereticus doesn't actually have its own independent units. So Sisters, a previously established army with a preexistent product line and a decent fluff connection to the Witch Hunters ended up filling out the book. To put a number on it, nearly 46% of the units in C:WH are SoB. Fully seven units benefit from the Faith Points special rules. As things turned out, the Inquisitors, Storm Troopers, and assorted freaks were the real "tacked on" elements rather than the sisters. So why is over half of my Sisters codex (because that's what it really is anyway) not working with my Sisters? What if I took your IG codex, tore half of its units out, and then re-filled it with a bunch of weird gak like Penitent Engines? Would a lecture about "flexibility" and "more options" make you feel better?

Emperors Faithful wrote:To me it seems that your solution would only please the most die-hard SoB fans (including yourself.) A sister only codex would only exclude them more, and they would attract very few new players, and those that do include them in thier armies may not see it as worth the effort to go all out in a sister only army.

I think that the lackluster performance of C:WH has itself proven that not having a Sisters-only dex is the wrong answer. Witch Hunters have not exactly attracted a great deal of new players since 2003. Part of that reason has to do with their expensive metal minis (although this was much less the case in 2003 than now, it should be remembered) and part of the reason is that the book is six years old (again, that wasn't a problem in 2003!) but the main problem has always been that it wasn't designed to be competitive in and of itself. C:WH and C: DH seem to have been tailor written for people interested in narrative-heavy casual play. That's all well and good BUT the unintended (I hope) result was having a very cool army that was previously independent being hobbled while at the same time proclaiming, as you have been, that it is technically possible to play a Sisters-only army. My fellow CSM players will sympathize when I mention that this is like arguing that it is still technically possible to play a Cult army.

Emperors Faithful wrote:If I might pose a question here. If you think that Sisters of Battle deserve thier own codex, do you also believe that Grey Knights should have thier own codex? Basically they have the same role and relationship to thier respective ordos.

First off, I don't think they have quite the same role with regard to themselves or to their respective Ordos. But that's really neither here nor there. I would say GK work well as a allied force because you can use a small number of them effectively. You hear a lot more about them even these days then you ever do about the Sisters. I don't think GK would work as well, at least not with their current point costs, as a pure army. So, no, they neither need nor deserve (fluff-wise) their own book. I do think, however, that they both need and deserve new rules.

I would prefer two seperated books. One for the Sisters and one for the Ordo Malleus. No, not a Codex Grey Knights but a Codex Daemonhunters, much like we already have.
With a seperate Malleus Codex GW can not only please the GK fans( hopefully without introducing bullsh** like GK Rhinos/ Librarians/bikes/Predators ) but, since there will be ample of space, also the friends of radical Inquisitors which currently lack any real options for building their army.

I second KingDeath on having radical Inquisitor options, I always liked the idea.

I voted no, not from a balance point of view, or from a gaming point of view. It's simply that the two armies would lose their sense of individuality. I play a Daemonhunter army, not a generic 'might have some Sisters-Inquisitorial' army. Also, say you're looking for something in your codex, you don't want to have to (at least I don't want to) trawl through page after page of useless information on units that you don't own, or even have any intention of ever fielding. At £18 a codex, having two melded together is justification for GW to jack the price to 20...30+ bucks since you have what is in effect, 2 codices.

Release em together in a massive Inquisition event/campaign/whatever. But don't lump us in one dex

i voted yes.

reason is, i keep reading that the codex's for these 3 factions are fairly weak, while the 3 all basically focus on the same enemy set.

banding them together would make them a much more viable and well-supported playing option.

Fluff has no basis on the viability of single books for each codex.

What it boils down to is simple... Can GW produce new plastic and metal models for each separate entity of the inquisition and its militant orders? And can those models actually earn them profit? The answer should be pretty obvious. No.

The tyranid book that just came out took the existing 15 units in the codex and ballooned them to 32. I can't fathom a combined ecclesiarchy/sisters of battle codex with 30+ units. Celestians/dominions/battle sisters/retributers can only go so far. It may fill out a codex but it won't generate interest for an army to see that half of your units are built from the same kit.

Same goes for grey knights... whos's going to be interested in a pure marine force that has no scouts, no rhinos, no razorback, no speeders, no assault marines? A mixture of ordo malleus and grey knights has potential, but filling out 30 units of a limited focussed space marine force and crazy guys in t-shirts wouldn't generate the interest and revenue of a xenos book.

Could you shoot for a target of 8 special characters, around 4 HQs, 5-6 elites, 4 troops, 4-5 fast attack and 4-5 heavy support with a triple inquisition book? Absolutely. would you be pretty covered on some special character sculpts, and some current generation metal kits? Yeah, sure... They could invent 4-5 new model kits and a couple new special characters, lump it all in together, ret-con any fluff loopholes, and then return to the business of selling space marines and the 'enemies of space marines'.

If you are a fan of any of the ordos, if you want a sisters of battle army, a deathwatch army, or a grey knights army, then I'd be on board with this possibility. GW is in the business of making money, and it is quite unlikely that they could invest in a release of a pure force from any of those books.

I would expect that pure forces would be feasable within this dex. they won't be as tourney powerful as a mixed force, but it will certainly be half decent, and satisfy the needs of fluff purists. Certain special characters or even certain standard HQ choices can incentivize focusing on a particular element. Canoness makes battle sisters troops comes to mind as just one simple step that can be taken to make the book flexible.

its good for everyone... fluff reactionaries will have a hard time sharing the pages of their books of their favorite unpopular army. but, it is likely the only way you'll see a modern codex. the alternative might be a non-tourney legal, forgeworld list in the back of some IA volume.

I think Shep has the right of it here. Look at any of the most recent codex releases- they are MUCH larger than the WH or DH codices.

Consider also that GW has moved away from Armoury sections. Our Inquisitors won't have 5 pages of options (psy powers, hench, wargear). They'll be streamlined into the modern format--- and this is a GOOD THING.

Allies is likely to be a thing of the past, as well. None of the recent codex updates has a "refer to xxx codex for rules" unit, as GW wants all codexes to be self-contained. This is also a GOOD THING.

I think it would also be interesting to see (in a retcon'd fashion, to be sure) how different Ordos interact, fluff wise. There really is a lot of overlap between O. Mal and O. Her-- O. Xen might not have quite as much.

I'm having trouble following what Shep and kartofelkopf are suggesting. One book? Three? Different books altogether, like pure-Sisters?

Shep wrote:Fluff has no basis on the viability of single books for each codex.

Either you've overstated your point or are flat-out wrong. Notice how there was a independent Sisters dex and no Inquisition before Abnett started writing stories about Gregor Eisenhorn and Inquisitor game came out?

Manchu wrote:I'm having trouble following what Shep and kartofelkopf are suggesting. One book? Three? Different books altogether, like pure-Sisters?

Shep wrote:Fluff has no basis on the viability of single books for each codex.

Either you've overstated your point or are flat-out wrong. Notice how there was a independent Sisters dex and no Inquisition before Abnett started writing stories about Gregor Eisenhorn and Inquisitor game came out?

The old sisters dex was small by current codex standards and had little model support. Heck even the current one has little model support.

His point is that to make a modern codex for 5th edition you need a large number of units and options. This makes army building more interesting. If you make it SOB only then GW is forced to create a large number of new models to support it, either that or release a codex with almost no model support. The previous option is great but unlikely. The second option is better than nothing but we find ourselves kit-bashing rhino's for the next year.

The alternative is to combine the dexes and therefore have additional existing models folded into the codex along with adding a few extra components and a much larger codex up to current standards (SM, IG, Tyranids).

A single codex. By 5e standards, the current WH/DH codexes are TINY, despite the fact that they have excessive wargear sections.

Combining them into a single codex, even taking all the existing units for DH (11) and WH (17) (with 3-5 overlapping units), would still be a smaller codex than most modern 5e codexes.

Even adding in Ordo Xenos would only necessitate an upgrade sprue for Deathwatch (although a model line would be hot, too).

I don't know what people think would be lost in a combined dex... maybe faith points? I still think a single page for FP could be accommodated. The SoB list is quite compact at the moment... I think we have everything to gain from expanding our options.

@Manchu - If it was up to me GW would go back to their 3rd edition model of mini-dexes in WD, online and in annual CHapter Approved books.

The Arbites, the Adeptus Mech, the SoBs, the GKs, Squats and Space Pirates would all get lists.

But I don't run GW. GW is hellbent on doing 3 codexes a year, and keeping 5 (FIVE!) for Space Marines.

With the very limited space remaining I support a combined Inquisition book. That means the SoB won't get the attention they deserve, it means the Arbs will be lucky to get the footnote they have now, it means Inquisitors will lose tons of options.

But I'd rather have that than wait another 7 years and 3 editions for a book.

@Kevin Nash:

Couple of points back atcha:

Codex: Sisters of Battle (1997) was sixty four pages long. Codex: Witch Hunters (2003) is sixty four pages long. So . . .

Your point must be that there were less units in C:SoB than in C:WH, I guess. But that's just a truism. The same can be said about every Second Edition Codex when compared to its Third, Fourth, or Fifth Edition successor. I'm also not following you on your "lack of model support" point. Every single unit in C:WH currently has an available model . . . in contrast to, say, Fifth Edition Orks or Space Wolves. Right.

Okay but moving right along, your claim is that the ten Sisters units (out of only fifteen that are unique to C:WH) would not be enough to fill out my proposed C:SoB 2ed? Fair enough. GW would need only five new models to replace the circus freaks. What could be easier? Tyranids just got six new models. So we'll be generous and say the Sisters can have six new models at release of C:SoB 2ed. That gets them back up to where they were and lets GW come out with a plastic sister range, a la Space Wolves. And voila: with plastic sisters, three more sisters units all get a new model! Still not enough to fill out a "modern" codex? Fine: then we Sororitas players learn to wait like SW and Orks and Tyranids and everyone else--oh wait! We already know how to wait so that's not a problem either.

So you see, for reasons of fluff, for reasons of mechanics, and for reasons of business practicality, Sisters could and should have their own dex as soon as possible.

Between some of the points raised and reading the current codexes yesterday, I'd like to rescind my former position. Grey knights should still be a varient list of the Inquisition codex, and I'd raise Deathwatch to the same position.

However, I think doing a SoB codex is quite viable. They do associate with the Inquisition a lot, but I think that it would work better to have a choice of taking an Inquisitor with a variant retinue as a choice in a SoB army, not the other way around. Sort of a 'Inquisitor for this many points with these options, can change wargear this way, must take between 4 and 8 acolytes' and then list the changes to the acolytes in the same way members of a tactical squad can upgrade to having flamers or meltas etc.

Some of the 'odd' units currently in there should say, imho, but then it is a choice of how they modify the army. Penitent engine as a heavy support choice, for instance, and filling a role like a walker does in some other armies. Things like stormtroopers just seem... superfluous. An easy and practical addition may be units of fanatics, the fervently devout and mostly untrained willing to fling themselves into battle for the Emperor's name; fluff seems to have quite a few of these and they'd break up the profile a bit. Other such ideas can likely be thought up by those that know the SoB fluff better than I (it's probably one of my weakest areas fluff wise) and there is enough room to move around some interesting tactics. Fast moving seraphim based armies, slower but unstoppable tanks spewing walls of flame, and I hope they keep the awesome 'organ tank' in some capacity.

For the Inquisition combined itself, I don't think they lose out a great deal on not having SoB in their line up. Incredible fanatics with loyalties elsewhere tend to be slightly uncomfortable bedfellows to the Inquisition (Dark Heresy mentions there being a bit of friction between the Inquisition and both the Escelarchy and the Mechanium). Stormtroopers slide nicely across into a troops choice and free up the elites slot for other, more exotic units which arguable belong there. A hefty smattering of GK units keeps options open for those wanting purestrain that way, I'm not sure if Deathwatch are ever fielded solo so uncertain if they need the same deal (I got the impression they tend to be part of a task force, not flying on their own. That's why they're borrowed for a bit before being sent back to their chapters).

I do feel though that Inquisition needs to be able to run a list without having to use GK or SoB or other 'outsiders' should they choose. Sure, it is not going to be the most viable list (I'd think) but if they can only ever lean on the support of others they're more a toothless tiger than the feared force they are now. People must yield to them for more reasons than the threat of being dragged off and tortured, because they have to know there is the abilty to carry that threat through, that hiding behind bodyguards doesn't work. Generals have to know that they can't just refuse and shoot the annoying Inquisitor who demands they yield their guardsmen for some task. Ok, so maybe strong-arming Astartes is not going to work at the best of times, but the ability to back up your words amongst the others at least would be needed to earn the respect of them.

So I'm going to walk over here and side with Manchu. For probably the first time ever. Yipes.

I'm going to let Shep do most of the writing from now on. He's obviously more literate and well versed in this area.

@Manchu: I've only read a single Inquisitor Book, I think it was Mallues. Beyond that it was not the works of Black Library that sparked my interest. Indeed, I've always thought of Inquisitors to be deeply intriuging characters becuase of their independancy and simple humanity amonsgt vast alien hords and superhuman warriors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW, a combined codex means two things of a bonus appeal to me.

1) A higher likelihood of introducing Ordos Xenos.
2) The chance of an Inquisitorial Flyer (much like a shuttle)

C'mon, even you Manchu have to smile at the prospect of an Airborne Sister Force?

I think the combination would work out very well. I do agree that pure armies are very viable but I think a mix would be the ultimate large army. I have it right now with a SM base army to act as Deathwatch and GK and SoB allies. It takes alot of points but for those higher end games it works. Sure I dont get an exorcist this way but I get land raiders.

From the various attempts, a combined Assassins / Sisters / GK / DW / Allies Inq book easily becomes bloated and diffuse with too many disparte elements pulling it apart.

Returning Sisters to a standalone army, and restoring their lost units would be fine.

Folding GK, Deathwatch, and Assassins under the Inquisitition umbrella works OKish, due to the various flavors being very narrow model-wise, and GW's new penchant for tying everything to HQ choices...

Why does this argument keep coming up every week? How many times do the people in the know, including, oh, I do not know, Jervis Johnson (I hear he has the inside word on Games Workshop HQ) have to keep saying that there will never be a combined Inquisition? We know for a fact that work began on SEPARATE Grey Knight and Sisters books (yet, not Inquisition: search the News forum for HBMC's frequent lamentations of this) in the middle of last year. Why keep bringing it up? It is like suggesting that Blood Angels are `clearly' going to be squatted due to their pdf-Codex, completely ignoring the fact we know they are getting updated (very) soon. Come on people, this horse is beyond decomposition. The Tomb Kings have more rotting flesh in their army list than remains on this argument.

I've never heard any official stance on a Inquisition book, single or otherwise. Please, direct me to your sources. (Not trying to be smug, actually just curious)

My only request is that they give ][nquisitorial units some character and individuality, rather than just rip-offs of other armies units. I have no idea HOW to do this, but I'd like to see it all the same.

This came up because the last round of un-sourced rumors said this was the new plan.

It is possible they scrapped the idea of GK and SoB books since they need to make room for Codex Blood Ravens.

In all seriousness, what is Elric of Glans talking about?

Although, I don't care how long I have to wait for a Sisters book if it means having C:BR so K_K can make a signature about "the titanic showdown between Red Marines and Slightly Darker Red Marines."

Each new codex would be welcome and a combined codex
for Ordo Malleus and Ordo Hereticus would be great,
especially since their counterparts Daemons, Chaos, heretics are among 'us'.

A lot of the main rumourmongers (Harry, Brimstone, etc) have repeatedly shot this down (check any thread on Grey Knights OR Sisters on Warseer). At a Games Day a while back (I cannot remember which one, but I believe early last year), during the panel with the designers, Jervis shot it down for probably the third time (I stopped counting). This is no secret: search the News board of any Warhammer forum. Andy Hoare was also there at the time and spoke (very) briefly about the Sisters. Since then, we have had confirmation that Grey Knights (picked up by Phill Kelly after he finished Space Wolves) are getting Jump Infantry and Sisters (started by Andy Hoare; not sure about now) are getting a Chimera variant. Again, none of this is a secret, and all of it is very old news.

Please, is there any way you link can this or something?

I'll help: http://www.warseer.com

Thanks...I think...