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.

The other night I sat down to put together a proper list for 8th, the first time I've been bothered to even pretend I'd be collecting a full army-size force of GW stuff for years(post-4th I pretty much stuck to Specialist Games and armies I already owned), and I'm actually a bit surprised how quickly my initial enthusiasm turned to frustration.

The Keywords system seems like a fantastic idea for preventing ridiculous deathstar combos, but it gets in the way so much that I'm wondering whether or not it's a worthwhile tradeoff - GW clearly intend for people to construct things like Inquisition armies by drawing on multiple mini-factions, but the Keyword system doesn't factor that in at all. For example, Inquisitorial Storm Troopers can't be built as I'd always used them in the past because "Militarum Tempestus" is explicitly not permitted for Chimeras, and Inquisitorial Acolytes don't get access to Storm Trooper equipment and armour, so my only option is to convert Chimeras with a Taurox Prime's weapon loadout and hope my opponent is happy with counts-as(and hope as well I never play in one of those GW stores where the manager is a sadsack wee pedant who demands no counts-as at all for anything that GW makes a model for). Another side-effect of this approach is blandness - the whole reason I got into INQ28 in the first place was the recollection of the amount of fun I had converting up models for all the crazy specialisms you could include in your Inquisitor's warband back in the 3rd Ed codices, but now they've been reduced to a flavourless unit of "Acolytes" with a standard profile and equipment set while all the specialist roles have been carved off to form full-on Units for other minifactions, or which have become Characters who can't have any effect at all on most of your army thanks to Keywords.

The issue is then compounded even further with cases like the Deathwatch, where they impose seemingly entirely arbitrary restrictions on which Units & Characters can and cannot have the Deathwatch keyword and on the equipment options of those that can, and because of the keywords system you can't even dip into other factions to fill in those holes; if I take a Techmarine or Apothecary from another Chapter their abilities are useless, if I take my Chaplain as his original Chapter, Blood Angels, so he can keep using his standard Crozius, PF, and Jump Pack loadout the same problem occurs.

Maybe if there was evidence of some consistent, logical process at play behind the restrictions it'd be easier to swallow, but so much of it just seems...petty. We don't sell this exact model, so you can't have a Deathwatch Techmarine(so why bother producing add-on Deathwatch pads?). Deathwatch Chaplains have to be different to normal Chaplains, so we're taking away a pretty common loadout option because denying you that choice is the easiest way to achieve that. We want to make sure you have to buy new Transports for your Scions rather than repainting some old ones, you buying five boxes of the Scions themselves isn't good enough, so tough you can't run your Inquisitorial Storm Troopers in Chimeras or Rhinos like you used to.

Now, I've seen the argument made that this is to be expected, the Indices are stopgaps, all the flavour and variety will come back and they'll take the time to refine Keywords when the proper codices come out. Frankly I'd say that's cold comfort for someone who's just spent full-codex money for their army's rules(several forces, fielded as they were before, require two Indices not one) and will likely be waiting well over a year for the "proper" version to come out. It becomes positively icy for those of us who remain to be convinced that the leopard has changed his spots and genuinely don't know if GW will bother to fix such issues, assuming they even see them as issues in the first place.

Some folk will probably be thinking I'm being too harsh, but honestly the only reason I find most of the stuff above so frustrating is that despite the awful new fluff I was hopeful 8th would be a version of 40K I'd really enjoy - I should have remembered the old 40K aphorism about hope and the road to disappointment, I suppose.

I agree, the customization availible in 8th indexes is lacking. Much better than with the Compendium warscrols of WHFB to AoS, thougth.

And the "No models/visible modeled options, no rules" policy of GW is annoying but at this point has to be expected.

I'm sad that it has hit you this hard. Personally I have lose nearly 0 customization for my Dark Angels and Tau, or customization that mattered to me. But really theres nothing we can say about it. Is already done. We can MP GW about how we fell about it so they can take feedback and maybe change fix it in the future. But thats all.

We aren't gonna get nothing but a slighly relief leaving our frustrations written in this forum to others to read. I have now caught the habit to email GW with everything that I don't like about their actions/rulesets/policies, etc... in a constructive way.
Maybe it doesn't help. Maybe it does. I think they have at least demostrate that they are willing to ear the community, AoS is a proof. The problem is that people many times is confused and understand that "Earing the community=Doing everything they personally want". The "community" isn't a homogeiniced mass, nor GW is just here to ear us. They have still their own plans as a multinational corporation that can be affected or not by the community reaction.

With Kirby, the reaction from GW from the community was 0. Now is more than 0, so it has sky-rocket

Why can't scions go in a chimera? The chimera allows astra militarum infantry. Scions have the keyword astra militarum infantry.

 gossipmeng wrote:
Why can't scions go in a chimera? The chimera allows astra militarum infantry. Scions have the keyword astra militarum infantry.

I was just about to say this. Do to the key word Astra militarum you can put your storm troopers into chimeras as you gave always been able to do. Sions also have the word infantry. So your good to go.

You're trying to do open play things in matched play. That's where the problem is.

I agree that the index we have are rather boring, but its been said a million times, these are here to allow all armies playable in 8th edition. I would expect proper lists and cheese once 8th edition codex get dropped on our heads.

Sounds like you were expecting too much from the rule change..

The idea was to make every army from the last edition playable. which they have achieved (mainly BL to Taudar)

you are also comparing a fair chunk to the skirmish games of Inquisimunda, which is individual focused not army based.

But yes.. you can have Storm Troopers use Chimerias

I know what you mean. I started with the 3rd ed Daemonhunters during 5th ed (but well before the GK codex) and it's just kinda been a downhill slide on the customization

I'm trying to reconcile it by telling myself that a lot of those options back then weren't effective and, due to rule changes over editions, some of them didn't even have any actual effect anymore. It's still sad to see that kind of breadth of options go away though.

Maybe when the codices are released, they'll have some more interesting stuff in them. Sooner or later, I'm going to say it enough to believe it

 gossipmeng wrote:
Why can't scions go in a chimera? The chimera allows astra militarum infantry. Scions have the keyword astra militarum infantry.

I was under the impression that the "narrowest" keyword is what counted for Transports, but you're right the Chimera explicitly permits AM Infantry, thanks for setting me right.

ERJAK wrote:
You're trying to do open play things in matched play. That's where the problem is.

No, I'm trying to field a basic Inquisition army - Inquisitor & retinue, Storm Troopers, and the appropriate Chamber Militant operating as one force. Open Play is for Babbie's First Wargame situations where new players need to chuck down whatever they have regardless of whether its a legal army, or for people playing "I've drunk eleventy-three beers, lets throw all this junk on the table and see what happens" games, it shouldn't be required to put together an army that's been part of the game since 3rd.

Darkmind wrote:
I agree that the index we have are rather boring, but its been said a million times, these are here to allow all armies playable in 8th edition. I would expect proper lists and cheese once 8th edition codex get dropped on our heads.

I did actually address that in the OP.

GodDamUser wrote:
Sounds like you were expecting too much from the rule change..

Evidently.

you are also comparing a fair chunk to the skirmish games of Inquisimunda, which is individual focused not army based.

No, I'm pointing out that it was the Inquisition rules & models from their 3rd Edition codex that got me and likely a fair few other people into the whole INQ28 thing in the first place - you used to be able to build a Retinue for 40K that was just as varied as Inquisimunda Ordos warbands are albeit with a smaller weapons selection. Now it's just a generic unit of mooks and a Jokaero.

It's much easier to field fluffy inquisition-based armies in 8th.
You're talking about adding scions. Now you can add just a unit of them if you want, you don't need to take a detachment.
Same thing if you want to add just a squad of sisters or GK or whatever.

Sharing transports is the only thing that was lost for allies (although in post-FAQ 7th, you couldn't start embarked in a BB transport), but inquisitors and acolytes ignore that.

But warhammer in 2nd edition and 3rd edition was basically a Skirmish sized game. Now is full armies, just compare the model count of 7-8th in 2k points for the one in 2nd or even 3d that was doubled from 2nd.
You can't have the same level of individual customization.

fresus wrote:
It's much easier to field fluffy inquisition-based armies in 8th.
You're talking about adding scions. Now you can add just a unit of them if you want, you don't need to take a detachment.
Same thing if you want to add just a squad of sisters or GK or whatever.

Sharing transports is the only thing that was lost for allies (although in post-FAQ 7th, you couldn't start embarked in a BB transport), but inquisitors and acolytes ignore that.

My Inquisitor was converted to have power armour.

Now what do I do?

I mean, I really like 8th edition so far, but the Inquisition got absolutely shafted. Even when you discount that Inquisitors just suck in general now, most of the old loadouts that we've had for 20 years aren't even actually playable anymore.

 Fafnir wrote:

fresus wrote:
It's much easier to field fluffy inquisition-based armies in 8th.
You're talking about adding scions. Now you can add just a unit of them if you want, you don't need to take a detachment.
Same thing if you want to add just a squad of sisters or GK or whatever.

Sharing transports is the only thing that was lost for allies (although in post-FAQ 7th, you couldn't start embarked in a BB transport), but inquisitors and acolytes ignore that.

My Inquisitor was converted to have power armour.

Now what do I do?

I mean, I really like 8th edition so far, but the Inquisition got absolutely shafted. Even when you discount that Inquisitors just suck in general now, most of the old loadouts that we've had for 20 years aren't even actually playable anymore.

Counts as Greyfax until you get rules that most probably will allow an Inquisitor in Artificer armour, which looks basically the same as power armour? Play it as a normal Inquisitor until the same? Stick a bird on it, play it as Coteaz?
This complaint is not viable until we know that the real codex doesn't include this option, and even then it's one single model. It's way way into acceptable casualties territory for a big shake-up like this.

 Fafnir wrote:

fresus wrote:
It's much easier to field fluffy inquisition-based armies in 8th.
You're talking about adding scions. Now you can add just a unit of them if you want, you don't need to take a detachment.
Same thing if you want to add just a squad of sisters or GK or whatever.

Sharing transports is the only thing that was lost for allies (although in post-FAQ 7th, you couldn't start embarked in a BB transport), but inquisitors and acolytes ignore that.

My Inquisitor was converted to have power armour.

Now what do I do?

I mean, I really like 8th edition so far, but the Inquisition got absolutely shafted. Even when you discount that Inquisitors just suck in general now, most of the old loadouts that we've had for 20 years aren't even actually playable anymore.

We have to assume this was by design, as GW seems to be flipping what units were good/garbage from 7th, and it likely a play to get you to either buy more models to make the most efficient loadout, or they plan to release their own Inquisitors later this year (and I hope they do, it's long past due).

Eh. Sounds like you're expecting an RPG-lite based off the wacky stuff from the Inquisition codexes of 20 years ago.


Honestly that wasn't ever in the cards.

The state of the Inquisition, the Inquisitors themselves in particular, is just appalling. Most of the Inquisitor models people have, including many of those GW have sold over the years, and even some of those they currently sell are illegally equipped.

ERJAK wrote:
You're trying to do open play things in matched play. That's where the problem is.

I'm surprised how often I'm seeing people not understand this.
If you want any semblance of balance then you need restrictions.

I guess it is a learning curve which I went through with fantasy and Age of Sigmar. You have to learn how to enjoy openplay.

The_Peacemaker wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
You're trying to do open play things in matched play. That's where the problem is.

I'm surprised how often I'm seeing people not understand this.
If you want any semblance of balance then you need restrictions.

I guess it is a learning curve which I went through with fantasy and Age of Sigmar. You have to learn how to enjoy openplay.

So basically play it until you're on board? Guess the current GW tactics are working.

Not really. Is like playing Dark Souls with the same mentality as you have when you play Candy Crush in your train trips. Different games or game modes require different mentalities and are for different people.

2nd edition was also a terribly balanced mess even compared to 7th edition. So let's take off our rose-tinted glasses, y'hear?

And it's also no coincidence that there's a mass exodus of 2nd ed players who quit 40K completely that came back solely for this edition. Maybe because it's cut of the same cloth?

 Galas wrote:
Not really. Is like playing Dark Souls with the same mentality as you have when you play Candy Crush in your train trips. Different games or game modes require different mentalities and are for different people.

I conducted a fun experiment on some of my friends.

I had them sit down and go through character creation to the first boss fight of Dark Souls 3, and see how they did.

Friend #1
Favorite Game: Super Smash Brothers
Last Owned Console: N64
Experience: Died a lot in the tutorial portion of the game. Got lost a few times. Struggled initially with the concept of stamina and blocking, rolling, and killing enemies. After relating it to a hard-mode N64 Zelda with lock on and other things, this person did well. Came within 1-2 hits of beating the boss, then gave up.

Friend #2
Favorite Game: Insert Final Fantasy Title Here
Last Owned Console: Owns PS4, Xbox 1
Experience: Steamrolled the tutorial, did okay against the boss. Had immense difficulty with the concept of dodging attacks versus blocking. Boss patterns proved unpredictable and difficult. Ultimately concluded that he liked the game, but could see that it would take time to master, and didn't have that. Did not beat the first boss, but definitely could have with some time.

Friend #3
Favorite Game: Kingdom Hearts
Last Owned Console: Owns PS4, Xbox 1
Experience: Beat the tutorial easily. But got absolutely steamrolled by the boss. Didn't block once. Didn't roll once. Just ran up and hit stab as fast as possible. Died horrendously. Got very upset, announced the game was stupid, exclaimed that no one should play such trash, and gave up. Made no effort to play the game the way it was meant to be played, seemed barely aware of the actual mechanics, and gave up.

Friend #4
Favorite Game: Diablo 2
Last Owned Console: Owns PS4, Xbox 1
Experience: Started as deprived. Struggled with the controls at first, but found his groove. Spent about 2 hours on the boss, refusing to give up. Got rather angry, often exclaiming things were bs, or that the hitbox was totally off. Beat the boss after about 2 hours. Had picked up almost 7000 souls throughout the process from the starting mobs. Went on to beat Dark Souls 3 with the appropriate ending, and all the bosses. Ultimately found the game very rewarding and worth the learning curve. Now, one of his favorite games. Still plays and yells at the TV.

As someone who has both Kingdom Hearts and Dark Souls/ Bloodborne on his favorite games list...

The guy must not play harder difficulties or secret bosses in Kingdom Hearts if he's playing that lazily. Secret boss in the first Kingdom Hearts can one shot you with a quick slash if you have no defense spells up and with two if you do.

 Purifier wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:

fresus wrote:
It's much easier to field fluffy inquisition-based armies in 8th.
You're talking about adding scions. Now you can add just a unit of them if you want, you don't need to take a detachment.
Same thing if you want to add just a squad of sisters or GK or whatever.

Sharing transports is the only thing that was lost for allies (although in post-FAQ 7th, you couldn't start embarked in a BB transport), but inquisitors and acolytes ignore that.

My Inquisitor was converted to have power armour.

Now what do I do?

I mean, I really like 8th edition so far, but the Inquisition got absolutely shafted. Even when you discount that Inquisitors just suck in general now, most of the old loadouts that we've had for 20 years aren't even actually playable anymore.

Counts as Greyfax until you get rules that most probably will allow an Inquisitor in Artificer armour, which looks basically the same as power armour? Play it as a normal Inquisitor until the same? Stick a bird on it, play it as Coteaz?
This complaint is not viable until we know that the real codex doesn't include this option, and even then it's one single model. It's way way into acceptable casualties territory for a big shake-up like this.

The point is, we shouldn't have to. GW told us nothing would be invalidated, and unfortunately that's not the case.

I love 8th. But they've screwed up with a lot of units.

 General Kroll wrote:
GW told us nothing would be invalidated

Misinformation that keeps getting repeated over and over and it has to stop. What they said was

Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000

They did not promise you that your own custom builds would be viable, nor did they promise that anyone with a Squat army was gonna get full rules. They promised that nothing they are currently selling would be invalidated.

 Purifier wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
GW told us nothing would be invalidated

Misinformation that keeps getting repeated over and over and it has to stop. What they said was

Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000

They did not promise you that your own custom builds would be viable, nor did they promise that anyone with a Squat army was gonna get full rules. They promised that nothing they are currently selling would be invalidated.

Some of the Inquisitors they currently sell have illegal equipment, as Inquisitors are unable to take a melee weapon with non-pistol shooting weapon.

Well. You can use them. WYSIWYG isn't a real official GW rule, so... they are still technically correct.

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
GW told us nothing would be invalidated

Misinformation that keeps getting repeated over and over and it has to stop. What they said was

Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000

They did not promise you that your own custom builds would be viable, nor did they promise that anyone with a Squat army was gonna get full rules. They promised that nothing they are currently selling would be invalidated.

Some of the Inquisitors they currently sell have illegal equipment, as Inquisitors are unable to take a melee weapon with non-pistol shooting weapon.

I'm assuming you mean Inquisitor with Combi Weapon.



There's nothing stopping that weapon from being a normal close combat weapon, with no special rules. So it's perfectly legal.

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
GW told us nothing would be invalidated

Misinformation that keeps getting repeated over and over and it has to stop. What they said was

Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000

They did not promise you that your own custom builds would be viable, nor did they promise that anyone with a Squat army was gonna get full rules. They promised that nothing they are currently selling would be invalidated.

Some of the Inquisitors they currently sell have illegal equipment, as Inquisitors are unable to take a melee weapon with non-pistol shooting weapon.

Yep one model that has a power sword and a combi weapon. very silly

also the fact that there is a inquisitor in terminator armor but no model for it i find strange.

maybe that one inquisitor is legal for SWA

edit: At purifer

he has a power sword.

you can tell from the power cable dot thing going down the center of it.

 Desubot wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 General Kroll wrote:
GW told us nothing would be invalidated

Misinformation that keeps getting repeated over and over and it has to stop. What they said was

Yes. Every Warhammer 40,000 miniature we sell today will be usable in the new edition of Warhammer 40,000

They did not promise you that your own custom builds would be viable, nor did they promise that anyone with a Squat army was gonna get full rules. They promised that nothing they are currently selling would be invalidated.

Some of the Inquisitors they currently sell have illegal equipment, as Inquisitors are unable to take a melee weapon with non-pistol shooting weapon.

Yep one model that has a power sword and a combi weapon. very silly

also the fact that there is a inquisitor in terminator armor but no model for it i find strange.

maybe that one inquisitor is legal for SWA

Inquisitor with Terminator Armour is an Ordo Malleus Inquisitor. It's in the index. The sword-guy, as I already stated, doesn't at all have to be a power sword.

he has a power sword.

you can tell from the power cable dot thing going down the center of it.[/b]

according to what rule exactly, is this backed up?