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.

Galas wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm fairly ignorant on imperial factions, but couldn't the GK mechanically be custodes+psykers? Both seem to have a few parallels between them.

They should be Loyalist thousand sons. Leave anti demon stuff for narrative and their fluff, and just make them elite psyker space marines.

That attitude right there is what is wrong with 40K now. I want to play my toy soldiers IN the 40K universe...not in a a somewhat generic MTG esc resource management system to buff and debuff damage. It is the reason why things like the 3.5 chaos codex is STILL the best codex ever made for chaos, because it actually made your army viable while still feeling like you were playing chaos in 40K. the same applies to these 3rd ed codexes like GKs. the GK baby carrier was a cool bit of bling but that codex lost much of the lore based rules that MADE THEM GKs.

kurhanik wrote:



Funny story, first time I got into 40k (group kind of died off shortly so I only had a few models and a couple of games in using borrowed models), I specifically picked Daemonhunters because I loved how much variety it had. I remember having big plans for an Inquisitor, like 1 or 2 squads of Grey Knights, and then a bunch of inducted Imperial Guard. When I got back into the game back in 7th at the behest of my girlfriend, on glancing around I ended up just going straight Guard because I wasn't interested in a codex of only Grey Knights and did not want to buy several codices to take advantage of allies.

I have since obtained some Inquisition level models, but still have not grabbed any Grey Knights simply because of how starved for detachments they are. Fitting an Inquisitor alone is fairly easy, but say Acolytes or a Daemonhost, suddenly you need a full detachment. And inducted Guard? That is a detachment right there. Oh you wanted Stormtroopers with actual doctrines to go with your inducted Guard? Another detachment. Finally Grey Knights? Yup! Another detachment!

I still sometimes think of picking up a box of Grey Knights to throw onto the pile of shame for "later", but really at this point it would be for if I do some Oldhammer type game using 3rd or 4th.

To bad you don't live near our group we would be more than happy to have a 3rd ed demon hunter inquisitorial player to throw down with (well maybe not our khorne player that uses the 3.5 dex ) since we have players using whichever compatible dex they like best in our 5th edition games.

 aphyon wrote:

Galas wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm fairly ignorant on imperial factions, but couldn't the GK mechanically be custodes+psykers? Both seem to have a few parallels between them.

They should be Loyalist thousand sons. Leave anti demon stuff for narrative and their fluff, and just make them elite psyker space marines.

That attitude right there is what is wrong with 40K now. I want to play my toy soldiers IN the 40K universe...not in a a somewhat generic MTG esc resource management system to buff and debuff damage. It is the reason why things like the 3.5 chaos codex is STILL the best codex ever made for chaos, because it actually made your army viable while still feeling like you were playing chaos in 40K. the same applies to these 3rd ed codexes like GKs. the GK baby carrier was a cool bit of bling but that codex lost much of the lore based rules that MADE THEM GKs.
.

I'm not convinced on this. I feel like more than ever there are lots of fluff based rules in the game, particularly via stratagems. Speaking as someone who played Daemonhunters.

Umbros wrote:

 aphyon wrote:

Galas wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm fairly ignorant on imperial factions, but couldn't the GK mechanically be custodes+psykers? Both seem to have a few parallels between them.

They should be Loyalist thousand sons. Leave anti demon stuff for narrative and their fluff, and just make them elite psyker space marines.

That attitude right there is what is wrong with 40K now. I want to play my toy soldiers IN the 40K universe...not in a a somewhat generic MTG esc resource management system to buff and debuff damage. It is the reason why things like the 3.5 chaos codex is STILL the best codex ever made for chaos, because it actually made your army viable while still feeling like you were playing chaos in 40K. the same applies to these 3rd ed codexes like GKs. the GK baby carrier was a cool bit of bling but that codex lost much of the lore based rules that MADE THEM GKs.
.

I'm not convinced on this. I feel like more than ever there are lots of fluff based rules in the game, particularly via stratagems. Speaking as someone who played Daemonhunters.

Stratagems are garbage to represent fluff based rules though.
Sincerly probably any CSM player that did run out of CP and now has only AL coloured inferior SM in the game.

I like the idea that the Inquisition is a corrupt, villainous organization - so it breathing down the neck of factions like Grey Knights and (mostly) treating them as lackeys is on point for them. The machinations, influence, and sometimes outright orders of Inquisitors has mobilized entire Astartes chapters before, and chapter 666 has a special relationship to them.

I liked the way it was handled in 3e, where You *could* make an entirely GK army, but you could also mix and match between henchmen, auxiliary forces, and GK's.

 aphyon wrote:

Galas wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I'm fairly ignorant on imperial factions, but couldn't the GK mechanically be custodes+psykers? Both seem to have a few parallels between them.

They should be Loyalist thousand sons. Leave anti demon stuff for narrative and their fluff, and just make them elite psyker space marines.

That attitude right there is what is wrong with 40K now. I want to play my toy soldiers IN the 40K universe...not in a a somewhat generic MTG esc resource management system to buff and debuff damage. It is the reason why things like the 3.5 chaos codex is STILL the best codex ever made for chaos, because it actually made your army viable while still feeling like you were playing chaos in 40K. the same applies to these 3rd ed codexes like GKs. the GK baby carrier was a cool bit of bling but that codex lost much of the lore based rules that MADE THEM GKs.

I mean, you can absolutely give them an edge over demons by how they are designed (Weapons without ap but high damage and strenght, etc...) but if you want to have them balanced agaisnt everything in the game you can't make them an autowin agaisnt demons to be able to fight the rest of factions, and you can't make them balance agaisnt demons and garbage agaisnt everything else.

You dont need an anti demon faction have ALL the +10 to wound <daemon> units to feel like they are specialized in fighting demons.
I'm a narrative player at heart and I will always love more narrative stuff than pure edge competitive bland. But theres a middle point where you can have armies being balanced for the whole game and also feel how they need to feel. If my grey knights are elite psiker space marines specialized in fast deployment in danger zones, is good enough. I don't need a +1 attack vs demons to know they are specialized agaisnt demons. Of course you need better rules writters that what GW has.

In this last months I have really missing some aspects of old warhammer, thats why I have been organizing fantasy 6th edition games with a couple of friends, and I'm actually looking to play 5th 40k , I just need to find repositories of the rules.

Yeah, good game design would have grey knights have abilities that happen to cater well to daemon slaying but still work the same on everyone, rather than an imbalance where a bunch of their abilities are completely nonexistent against most armies.

The latter leads to them either being underpowered on average, or correctly balanced on average then getting a bunch of overpowered buffs against a single faction.

The former leads to them being good at dealing with hordes and large monsters, which can be balanced around.

Alternatively, you can make the GKs good against everyone and overpowered against Daemons, and then make the Daemons good against everyone and overpowered against GK.

That way, every game is balanced.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Alternatively, you can make the GKs good against everyone and overpowered against Daemons, and then make the Daemons good against everyone and overpowered against GK.

That way, every game is balanced.

GW has tried that in the past and even in the present with the stratagem for demons to respawn but... normally they can't make it work. It also makes it harder to do, because basically you have to make both armies as "Normal" armies costed like that and then give both a bunch of free stuff that only works agaisnt each other.

 Galas wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Alternatively, you can make the GKs good against everyone and overpowered against Daemons, and then make the Daemons good against everyone and overpowered against GK.

That way, every game is balanced.

GW has tried that in the past and even in the present with the stratagem for demons to respawn but... normally they can't make it work. It also makes it harder to do, because basically you have to make both armies as "Normal" armies costed like that and then give both a bunch of free stuff that only works agaisnt each other.

Time and again, I find myself saying that "GW's incompetence in applying a concept doesn't invalidate the concept wholesale." But yes, it is harder; I hope they didn't sign up for game design thinking it'd be the easiest job they could find.

Of course you need better rules writters that what GW has.

In this last months I have really missing some aspects of old warhammer, thats why I have been organizing fantasy 6th edition games with a couple of friends, and I'm actually looking to play 5th 40k , I just need to find repositories of the rules.

Loads of players have started doing this because they find current 40K/AOS rather lackluster. i know many players have either gone back to WHFB or switched over to kings of war to get a proper fantasy battle setting just like many players have switched backed to playing older editions of 40K they prefer. while GW has never had a "perfect" edition (they were never trying for that with their sales model) they did have some great rules writers in the past. rather it's our hybrid 5th edition games using pre-existing rules form various editions or the pro-hammer project that uses some self created fan rules. the core rules and codexes are pretty easy to come by. i still owned all my core rulesbooks from 3rd-7th and i have been slowly building up my collection of my favorite codexes for each faction where the rules best represented the lore of the force.

I think this is all dancing around the fundamental problem that GW's concept of "armies" is basically anything capable of organized violence that exists within the universe, and a lot of these things get weird quickly.

It's like making a modern combat game and where Brazilian street gangs, Russian Spetznaz, US 1st Armored Division, the Royal Navy, the FBI, Syrian Rebels, specifically the LAPD SWAT, and the entirety of the PLA are your armies.

I reckon one way to do it would be to mess with invulnerable saves more. We know GW isn't averse to tweaking them, as it's pretty much Tzeentch's thing - and while it would hurt Daemons the most, every army in the game has some form of invulnerable save somewhere.
The tricky part would be balancing the Knights' normal AP so that they can still contend against ordinary armour saves, without being so good at that too that absolutely nothing can stand against them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galas wrote:
...Most players that want and like to play Sisters of Battle, Deathwatch, and Grey Knights... want and like to play Sisters of Battle, Deathwatch and Grey Knights. Not inquisition. Not the eclesiarchy.

Great. Yay. Woo.

Point of order: You could play pure GK in the 3e Codex. You didn't have as many options as you have now, but there was nothing stopping you. If you want to play an Inquisition army now you need four army books (Inquisition, Guard, Assassins, plus whichever Order Militant) and so much detachment tax that there's really no point. "But I don't want to play the Inquisition!" is a great argument for you playing pure GK instead of the Inquisition, it isn't a great argument for not letting anyone else play the Inquisition.

If it means playing GK is suppose to be gimped in favour of something that hasn't been an army in more then a decade and I happen to play GK it is very much an argument against it for me. If GW ever decides to make Inquisition a real army with real units and rules, that is awesome, but don't try to hijack other people codex or make other armies unfun to play. But you can play X is not an argument, if the X is made bad. I doubt a lot of BA players were happy about the fact that the 17 models in a BA army were 2 heroes and 15 scouts, and the rest of hte army was a mix of IG and Castellans.

Karol wrote:
If it means playing GK is suppose to be gimped in favour of something that hasn't been an army in more then a decade and I happen to play GK it is very much an argument against it for me. If GW ever decides to make Inquisition a real army with real units and rules, that is awesome, but don't try to hijack other people codex or make other armies unfun to play. But you can play X is not an argument, if the X is made bad. I doubt a lot of BA players were happy about the fact that the 17 models in a BA army were 2 heroes and 15 scouts, and the rest of hte army was a mix of IG and Castellans.

To a large extent Grey Knights hijacked the Inquisition codex.

Where does it say that. you said both things were in the codex. clearly GW decided that they don't want people to play inquisition armies, because if they did, then inqusition would still have models and rules. They did leave GK, and gave them rules since 5th ed, at least 3 times. No such thing for inquisition.

This may as well mean they never wanted people to play the army to begin with, and just wanted to sell models. And to make it even more true, they did not bring inquisition back with codex DW or codex SoB.

Karol wrote:
Where does it say that. you said both things were in the codex. clearly GW decided that they don't want people to play inquisition armies, because if they did, then inqusition would still have models and rules. They did leave GK, and gave them rules since 5th ed, at least 3 times. No such thing for inquisition.

This may as well mean they never wanted people to play the army to begin with, and just wanted to sell models. And to make it even more true, they did not bring inquisition back with codex DW or codex SoB.

Are you responding to me?

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
If it means playing GK is suppose to be gimped in favour of something that hasn't been an army in more then a decade and I happen to play GK it is very much an argument against it for me. If GW ever decides to make Inquisition a real army with real units and rules, that is awesome, but don't try to hijack other people codex or make other armies unfun to play. But you can play X is not an argument, if the X is made bad. I doubt a lot of BA players were happy about the fact that the 17 models in a BA army were 2 heroes and 15 scouts, and the rest of hte army was a mix of IG and Castellans.

To a large extent Grey Knights hijacked the Inquisition codex.

not really. GW just decided they wanted the chamber millitants to stand on their own. nothing was more soul destroying then reading 5th edition GK lists that consisted of 2 grey kmight units and a buncha henchmen

BrianDavion wrote:
GW just decided they wanted the chamber millitants to stand on their own.

That's saying the same thing as they hijacked the codex. It left people who liked the "Inquisition" aspect of the faction out in the cold.

BrianDavion wrote:
not really. GW just decided they wanted the chamber millitants to stand on their own. nothing was more soul destroying then reading 5th edition GK lists that consisted of 2 grey kmight units and a buncha henchmen

And still, 5th GK codex was so much fun. My Coteaz henchmen list played totally different from my all the Terminators list played different from my Paladin bomb list played different from my a bit of everything list.

Hecaton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
GW just decided they wanted the chamber millitants to stand on their own.

That's saying the same thing as they hijacked the codex. It left people who liked the "Inquisition" aspect of the faction out in the cold.

You know how Xena was first a character in Hercules tv series but then had her own show that became even more popular? Yeah.

I actually agree with Karol. I have no problem with Inquisition becoming their own thing and even with special rules for alling with the "chamber militants" (A thing that from the past 6-7 years has become more and more... eeh... difusse and irrelevant) but with how GW makes codex, should they all be rolled it would basically become mandatory to run them together, in detriment of SoB, Deathwatch and GK players.

 Galas wrote:
You know how Xena was first a character in Hercules tv series but then had her own show that became even more popular? Yeah.

I actually agree with Karol. I have no problem with Inquisition becoming their own thing and even with special rules for alling with the "chamber militants" (A thing that from the past 6-7 years has become more and more... eeh... difusse and irrelevant) but with how GW makes codex, should they all be rolled it would basically become mandatory to run them together, in detriment of SoB, Deathwatch and GK players.

Considering how GK popularity has dropped off dramatically, it wasn't so much that they were popular, they were just powerful. But you can structure the faction like Dark Eldar, that would be fine.

Hecaton wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You know how Xena was first a character in Hercules tv series but then had her own show that became even more popular? Yeah.

I actually agree with Karol. I have no problem with Inquisition becoming their own thing and even with special rules for alling with the "chamber militants" (A thing that from the past 6-7 years has become more and more... eeh... difusse and irrelevant) but with how GW makes codex, should they all be rolled it would basically become mandatory to run them together, in detriment of SoB, Deathwatch and GK players.

Considering how GK popularity has dropped off dramatically, it wasn't so much that they were popular, they were just powerful. But you can structure the faction like Dark Eldar, that would be fine.

Lets be honest, with the exception of space marines and orks, most factions fluctuate in player base around their power (I know the numbers are fuzzy, theres a ton of people that buy and dont play or just play garagehammer). Just look at the number of tau players that became imperial guard players since RT the moment 8th dropped.

Grey Knights in general were originally just an arm of the Inqusition their flavor and character has been cannibalized by every other chapter in existence. What made the grey knights cool was that they were the 'last gift' of the Emperor. Which is what many of their books center on which is what the grey knights do best which is fighting chaos, but more often than not they are worfed, or turned into memes by their opponents or players.

The Grey Knights have no real characters apart from Draigo and maybe Stern neither of whom have recieved any interesting lore in at least half a decade. Grey Knights also don't have much in terms of unique character kits or unit kits, they have two kits for their infantry and thats it really.

Their dreadknights are goofy, and much of their range is ancient or just utterly pointless when compared to primaris. Not only that but all their new lore has been given to other factions. Their direct competitor faction... The Exorcists are far more fleshed out in their character than the Grey Knights ever were.

On the tabletop Grey Knights have been bad for two editions, and are the worst list to collect as well. Grey Knights are just boring there is no flavor to them. What made the original grey knights interesting is they were a supplementary force to inqusition forces. So you took a small squad of grey knights with tons of inqusition infantry. Now you can't do that at all. Grey Knights themselves should be a bit more interesting, they shouldn't just be 'a space marine chapter with pyskers' but the monastic spiritual pysker nobility to the space marines. Akin to Sorcecers and are the most read of space marines, you can do that by building their range to focus on psychic powers, which they do but fail to make interesting.

Something that was done with the lumineth is that every squad leader was a mage, so every group of lumineth can cast magic to enhance their abilities or make them that more effective. Right now grey knights have no interesting abilities that buff themselves, or make themselves stronger. Grey knights have no interesting units as they use the same 2 modelling kits.

You can hate the primaris as much as you want but at least they have variety in their uses and kits. Its not just the same thing over and over again repeated across all the kits. Even the custodes have more variety across their very small lists compared to grey knights.

If anything Grey Knights top my list of "Factions that need a redo." Along with Eldar, Tyranids, and Guard.

Its a sad state but they are just boring to build, boring to read, and there are only good part about them is the ben counter series, Emperor's gift, and the Cursed Blade Series.

BrianDavion wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

Karol wrote:
If it means playing GK is suppose to be gimped in favour of something that hasn't been an army in more then a decade and I happen to play GK it is very much an argument against it for me. If GW ever decides to make Inquisition a real army with real units and rules, that is awesome, but don't try to hijack other people codex or make other armies unfun to play. But you can play X is not an argument, if the X is made bad. I doubt a lot of BA players were happy about the fact that the 17 models in a BA army were 2 heroes and 15 scouts, and the rest of hte army was a mix of IG and Castellans.

To a large extent Grey Knights hijacked the Inquisition codex.

not really. GW just decided they wanted the chamber millitants to stand on their own. nothing was more soul destroying then reading 5th edition GK lists that consisted of 2 grey kmight units and a buncha henchmen

What’s soul destroying about an accurate inquisitorial task force consisting of the inquisitor, their usual assets and some requisitioned heavies?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Grey Knights in general were originally just an arm of the Inqusition their flavor and character has been cannibalized by every other chapter in existence. What made the grey knights cool was that they were the 'last gift' of the Emperor. Which is what many of their books center on which is what the grey knights do best which is fighting chaos, but more often than not they are worfed, or turned into memes by their opponents or players.

The Grey Knights have no real characters apart from Draigo and maybe Stern neither of whom have recieved any interesting lore in at least half a decade. Grey Knights also don't have much in terms of unique character kits or unit kits, they have two kits for their infantry and thats it really.

Their dreadknights are goofy, and much of their range is ancient or just utterly pointless when compared to primaris. Not only that but all their new lore has been given to other factions. Their direct competitor faction... The Exorcists are far more fleshed out in their character than the Grey Knights ever were.

On the tabletop Grey Knights have been bad for two editions, and are the worst list to collect as well. Grey Knights are just boring there is no flavor to them. What made the original grey knights interesting is they were a supplementary force to inqusition forces. So you took a small squad of grey knights with tons of inqusition infantry. Now you can't do that at all. Grey Knights themselves should be a bit more interesting, they shouldn't just be 'a space marine chapter with pyskers' but the monastic spiritual pysker nobility to the space marines. Akin to Sorcecers and are the most read of space marines, you can do that by building their range to focus on psychic powers, which they do but fail to make interesting.

Something that was done with the lumineth is that every squad leader was a mage, so every group of lumineth can cast magic to enhance their abilities or make them that more effective. Right now grey knights have no interesting abilities that buff themselves, or make themselves stronger. Grey knights have no interesting units as they use the same 2 modelling kits.

You can hate the primaris as much as you want but at least they have variety in their uses and kits. Its not just the same thing over and over again repeated across all the kits. Even the custodes have more variety across their very small lists compared to grey knights.

If anything Grey Knights top my list of "Factions that need a redo." Along with Eldar, Tyranids, and Guard.

Its a sad state but they are just boring to build, boring to read, and there are only good part about them is the ben counter series, Emperor's gift, and the Cursed Blade Series.

what grey knights need is for GW to take a look at codex chaos deamons (another army that proably need a revision so I'd honestly do them together) and make the codex a natural counter to the strengths of deamons.

a good first step would be COMPLETELY revising how Nemisis force weapons work.

step one, REMOVE AP from MOST Nemisis force weapons (keep it on nemisis deamon hammers perhaps so GKs have something for anti-armor) step two: create a new rule for the weapon called "nemisis" that is basicly "AP for invul saves" the end result should be an army for whom your best protection is armor, and for whom invul saves are less effective. this works as anti-deamon and IMHO would make for an intreasting mechanic to add to the meta

Yah, ... its the same effect as what happened to the old 2nd ed. (metal) terminators, having been rendered (visually) obsolete when the Primaris SM appeared.
And I am just talking about the visual perspective , not the codex changes.

 Asherian Command wrote:
The Grey Knights have no real characters apart from Draigo and maybe Stern neither of whom have recieved any interesting lore in at least half a decade. Grey Knights also don't have much in terms of unique character kits or unit kits, they have two kits for their infantry and thats it really.

It makes me sad that Master Mordrak never got a model - he (and his retinue) was easily their most interesting character.

BrianDavion wrote:

a good first step would be COMPLETELY revising how Nemisis force weapons work.

step one, REMOVE AP from MOST Nemisis force weapons (keep it on nemisis deamon hammers perhaps so GKs have something for anti-armor) step two: create a new rule for the weapon called "nemisis" that is basicly "AP for invul saves" the end result should be an army for whom your best protection is armor, and for whom invul saves are less effective. this works as anti-deamon and IMHO would make for an intreasting mechanic to add to the meta

All this would do is make them bad.

AP is arguably the single most powerful stat in the entire game, a single point against a 2+ save literally doubling the amount of successful wounds against the unit in question on average. For the same reason, lowering or even negating a fairly weak 5++ is frankly not even particularly strong given that all Daemons have at least a 6+ armour save. The difference between a 5+ and a 6+ is not so great. This would also, funnily enough, make Bloodthirsters and Bloodcrushers more durable against Grey Knights because they have armour saves greater than their invulnerables.

No, as someone who plays both armies the best course of action is to just not have stupid gimmicky rules that feth Daemons for Grey Knights.

aphyon wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
Funny story, first time I got into 40k (group kind of died off shortly so I only had a few models and a couple of games in using borrowed models), I specifically picked Daemonhunters because I loved how much variety it had. I remember having big plans for an Inquisitor, like 1 or 2 squads of Grey Knights, and then a bunch of inducted Imperial Guard. When I got back into the game back in 7th at the behest of my girlfriend, on glancing around I ended up just going straight Guard because I wasn't interested in a codex of only Grey Knights and did not want to buy several codices to take advantage of allies.

I have since obtained some Inquisition level models, but still have not grabbed any Grey Knights simply because of how starved for detachments they are. Fitting an Inquisitor alone is fairly easy, but say Acolytes or a Daemonhost, suddenly you need a full detachment. And inducted Guard? That is a detachment right there. Oh you wanted Stormtroopers with actual doctrines to go with your inducted Guard? Another detachment. Finally Grey Knights? Yup! Another detachment!

I still sometimes think of picking up a box of Grey Knights to throw onto the pile of shame for "later", but really at this point it would be for if I do some Oldhammer type game using 3rd or 4th.

To bad you don't live near our group we would be more than happy to have a 3rd ed demon hunter inquisitorial player to throw down with (well maybe not our khorne player that uses the 3.5 dex ) since we have players using whichever compatible dex they like best in our 5th edition games.

He I'll keep that in mind in the unlikely event I end up moving.

Karol wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galas wrote:
...Most players that want and like to play Sisters of Battle, Deathwatch, and Grey Knights... want and like to play Sisters of Battle, Deathwatch and Grey Knights. Not inquisition. Not the eclesiarchy.

Great. Yay. Woo.

Point of order: You could play pure GK in the 3e Codex. You didn't have as many options as you have now, but there was nothing stopping you. If you want to play an Inquisition army now you need four army books (Inquisition, Guard, Assassins, plus whichever Order Militant) and so much detachment tax that there's really no point. "But I don't want to play the Inquisition!" is a great argument for you playing pure GK instead of the Inquisition, it isn't a great argument for not letting anyone else play the Inquisition.

If it means playing GK is suppose to be gimped in favour of something that hasn't been an army in more then a decade and I happen to play GK it is very much an argument against it for me. If GW ever decides to make Inquisition a real army with real units and rules, that is awesome, but don't try to hijack other people codex or make other armies unfun to play. But you can play X is not an argument, if the X is made bad. I doubt a lot of BA players were happy about the fact that the 17 models in a BA army were 2 heroes and 15 scouts, and the rest of hte army was a mix of IG and Castellans.

How is putting the old options that were in the Grey Knight book gimping their options? If anything they'd gain stuff like access to cheaper units and variety. The old book let you go full Inquisitor and retinue + their Stormtroopers, or all in Grey Knights, or you could take a few squads of Imperial Guardsmen, or even regular Space Marines (though I think specifically with them you could not take Grey Knights) all in the same book. In the modern 9th edition outlook, with the general standard of 3 detachments and each detachment costing cp.

Galas wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
GW just decided they wanted the chamber millitants to stand on their own.

That's saying the same thing as they hijacked the codex. It left people who liked the "Inquisition" aspect of the faction out in the cold.

You know how Xena was first a character in Hercules tv series but then had her own show that became even more popular? Yeah.

I actually agree with Karol. I have no problem with Inquisition becoming their own thing and even with special rules for alling with the "chamber militants" (A thing that from the past 6-7 years has become more and more... eeh... difusse and irrelevant) but with how GW makes codex, should they all be rolled it would basically become mandatory to run them together, in detriment of SoB, Deathwatch and GK players.

Really Inquisition just needs...a lot. Like some of their options back, actual troops, etc. Even a quick fix of letting them bring their Elites into an allied detachment without breaking things would help. Right now you can throw a single Inquisitor in without breaking stuff, but any other Inquisition units cannot be brought in this way. Using up a full detachment just so you can take one or two Acolytes and a Daemonhost is rough.

I really don't mind if Inquisition keeps itself as its own set of rules, I just dislike that with each edition more and more is either taken or removed from them and they gain basically nothing in return.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

a good first step would be COMPLETELY revising how Nemisis force weapons work.

step one, REMOVE AP from MOST Nemisis force weapons (keep it on nemisis deamon hammers perhaps so GKs have something for anti-armor) step two: create a new rule for the weapon called "nemisis" that is basicly "AP for invul saves" the end result should be an army for whom your best protection is armor, and for whom invul saves are less effective. this works as anti-deamon and IMHO would make for an intreasting mechanic to add to the meta

All this would do is make them bad.

AP is arguably the single most powerful stat in the entire game, a single point against a 2+ save literally doubling the amount of successful wounds against the unit in question on average. For the same reason, lowering or even negating a fairly weak 5++ is frankly not even particularly strong given that all Daemons have at least a 6+ armour save. The difference between a 5+ and a 6+ is not so great. This would also, funnily enough, make Bloodthirsters and Bloodcrushers more durable against Grey Knights because they have armour saves greater than their invulnerables.

No, as someone who plays both armies the best course of action is to just not have stupid gimmicky rules that feth Daemons for Grey Knights.

As someone that used to play Daemons, I do like the concept of "AP for Invulnerable Saves" as a replacement for rules that only work against daemons and nothing else, but not as full replacement for their actual AP. That would just make them suck even more than they have previously against everything else.
Of course if they have both regular AP and ++AP (IP?), it's need to be carefully balanced so that Daemons still get some saves. Probably -1 for most Nemesis weapons, with -2 for the Hammer and Dreadknight weapons (and maybe the Halberd could also be IP-2). Maybe Psi weapons could even mess with ++ saves?

If IP would come at the cost of anything other than extra points, I'd say it should be damage on certain weapons.