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.

Just pointing out that our favourite ne'er-do-wells and "oh so mysterious" macguffins, Cypher, only has the Imperium, Chaos, and Fallen faction keywords. Not even Heretic Astartes or Adeptus Astartes. Currently, this means he can only be taken on his own in an Auxiliary detachment, or leading minimum 3 units of Fallen in a Vanguard detachment.

I'm going to play that they're going to FAQ him to still be able to join forces with any Imperial or Chaos faction though

I also do not think you can take an Inquisitor anymore without at least three acolytes standing around him, not doing much.

 daedalus wrote:
I also do not think you can take an Inquisitor anymore without at least three acolytes standing around him, not doing much.

Yeah, Inquisition got screwed over hard by the new rules. Why they did not make special rules for them along with the assassins and SoS only GW knows!

 ikeulhu wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I also do not think you can take an Inquisitor anymore without at least three acolytes standing around him, not doing much.

Yeah, Inquisition got screwed over hard by the new rules. Why they did not make special rules for them along with the assassins and SoS only GW knows!

They're mostly HQs that already have a detachment that allows them to be taken. It's not at all good or how they should work, but its more or less the same as how the Assassins works now.

I haven't look that closely at the FAQ. Is there anything that negates Shadowy Allies (page 157 of Codex Heretic Astartes)? This seems to suggest these units, like Fabius Bile, are still allowed in a detachment but don't get the benefit of it.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I haven't look that closely at the FAQ. Is there anything that negates Shadowy Allies (page 157 of Codex Heretic Astartes)? This seems to suggest these units, like Fabius Bile, are still allowed in a detachment but don't get the benefit of it.

Fabius's rule negates the FAQ rule.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I haven't look that closely at the FAQ. Is there anything that negates Shadowy Allies (page 157 of Codex Heretic Astartes)? This seems to suggest these units, like Fabius Bile, are still allowed in a detachment but don't get the benefit of it.

Fabius's rule negates the FAQ rule.

No, it doesn't. All it does is let you include him without losing the trait.

Assassins are also shafted. Wanna take a lone Assassin? NO SOUP FOR YOU!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I haven't look that closely at the FAQ. Is there anything that negates Shadowy Allies (page 157 of Codex Heretic Astartes)? This seems to suggest these units, like Fabius Bile, are still allowed in a detachment but don't get the benefit of it.

Fabius's rule negates the FAQ rule.

No, it doesn't. All it does is let you include him without losing the trait.

Assassins are also shafted. Wanna take a lone Assassin? NO SOUP FOR YOU!

Or just spend one of the several CP that are given to Battalions and Brigades.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
I haven't look that closely at the FAQ. Is there anything that negates Shadowy Allies (page 157 of Codex Heretic Astartes)? This seems to suggest these units, like Fabius Bile, are still allowed in a detachment but don't get the benefit of it.

Fabius's rule negates the FAQ rule.

No, it doesn't. All it does is let you include him without losing the trait.

Assassins are also shafted. Wanna take a lone Assassin? NO SOUP FOR YOU!

If you want to take a single assassin, just take an Officio Assassinorum auxiliary support detachment.

It's the same with the smite change. They made exceptions for Grey Knights, and Thousand Suns, but not Warlocks. Even less reason to take them after the nerf.

You guys are remembering this is a Beta rule right..? As in totally optional for play and not an official part of the game.

The first two are official now get it?

 Mmmpi wrote:
It's the same with the smite change. They made exceptions for Grey Knights, and Thousand Suns, but not Warlocks. Even less reason to take them after the nerf.

Haven't played 8th yet. Still trying to learn but keep getting distracted. How come Grey Knights and Thousand Suns are the exception? Is it because of the Brotherhood of Pyskers keyword? If so, don't Tyranids get the exception as well? If not what am I missing?

Yeah, their special rule that modifies smite was specifically exempted from the smite change. Distructor for eldar wasn't. I don't know about Tyranids. Did they have a smite lite?

The brotherhood style rule they have makes their smites only do one MW, and limit the range. Same with distructor. All three have access to the regular smite (Grand masters, Sorcerers, Not-warlocks) and that is affected.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, their special rule that modifies smite was specifically exempted from the smite change. Distructor for eldar wasn't. I don't know about Tyranids. Did they have a smite lite?

The brotherhood style rule they have makes their smites only do one MW, and limit the range. Same with distructor. All three have access to the regular smite (Grand masters, Sorcerers, Not-warlocks) and that is affected.

GK have no access to regular smite, period.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, their special rule that modifies smite was specifically exempted from the smite change. Distructor for eldar wasn't. I don't know about Tyranids. Did they have a smite lite?

The brotherhood style rule they have makes their smites only do one MW, and limit the range. Same with distructor. All three have access to the regular smite (Grand masters, Sorcerers, Not-warlocks) and that is affected.

GK have no access to regular smite, period.

Ah, I thought (some) of their HQ had it. My bad.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yeah, their special rule that modifies smite was specifically exempted from the smite change. Distructor for eldar wasn't. I don't know about Tyranids. Did they have a smite lite?

The brotherhood style rule they have makes their smites only do one MW, and limit the range. Same with distructor. All three have access to the regular smite (Grand masters, Sorcerers, Not-warlocks) and that is affected.

GK have no access to regular smite, period.

Ah, I thought (some) of their HQ had it. My bad.

Nope. Not even their Librarians have it. Pretty ridiculous.

 Primark G wrote:
The first two are official now get it?

Not really, don't see how that's relevant.

The beta smite screwed GKs, so when the rule became official they gave GKs an exemption.

The beta Battle Brothers screws Fallen, Assassins and Inquisitors sure. But they'll obviously get an exemption if and when the rule becomes official. Just make sure GW get the message by emailing them.

No need to cry the sky is falling though.

 meleti wrote:

If you want to take a single assassin, just take an Officio Assassinorum auxiliary support detachment.

This would be an acceptable option if the auxiliary detachment did not count towards the suggested limit for detachments. Paying -1 CP for a single assassin is reasonable, but also losing an entire detachment slot as well is too much. Even if they just allowed an additional number of auxiliary support detachments equal to the other detachment limit it would go a long way towards allowing interesting combinations that were previously playable but at a cost that is not so overly detrimental.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:

 ikeulhu wrote:

Yeah, Inquisition got screwed over hard by the new rules. Why they did not make special rules for them along with the assassins and SoS only GW knows!

They're mostly HQs that already have a detachment that allows them to be taken. It's not at all good or how they should work, but its more or less the same as how the Assassins works now.

It does make some sense if you view the current rules as just a stop gap to keep all the Imperial Agents playable at a bare minimum for now. I just hope that they do not drop the ball and that they do properly address the issue within the upcoming Imperial Agent Codex.


Also, to get back on topic, Cypher definitely needs to at least be given the Heretic Astartes and Adeptus Astartes keywords to allow him to function as he should.

ikeulhu wrote:
Also, to get back on topic, Cypher definitely needs to at least be given the Heretic Astartes and Adeptus Astartes keywords to allow him to function as he should.

Problem then is that he can then use both Chaos and Space Marine stratagems and be targeted by both of their psychic powers. Of course, I'm fine with that.

He can still be included in a chaos or imperium army under seperate detachment. Armies still can be battleforged under chaos or imperium.

 Yarium wrote:

ikeulhu wrote:
Also, to get back on topic, Cypher definitely needs to at least be given the Heretic Astartes and Adeptus Astartes keywords to allow him to function as he should.

Problem then is that he can then use both Chaos and Space Marine stratagems and be targeted by both of their psychic powers. Of course, I'm fine with that.

Yeah, I do not really see that as a problem. It actually seems fitting to me from a lore perspective and would provide more of a reason to actually use him! I also do not think it would break anything balance wise either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:
He can still be included in a chaos or imperium army under seperate detachment. Armies still can be battleforged under chaos or imperium.

He then takes up an entire detachment slot as an auxiliary support or can only be included in a vanguard with at least three units of Fallen and absolutely nothing else. Does that really seem reasonable? I suppose it does fit the motif of bare minimum play-ability that was given for most of the Imperial Agents concerning the Battle Brothers rule, but that does not mean something should not be done in the future to make all these units function more like they were originally intended to.

I agree with the sentiment that Cypher and Fallen (like the other small organizations of 40K) will eventually get exception-ed out of this purgatory. I don't imagine many too many players have the models (or desire for a mediocre Character and Elites) to make use of a Fallen Vanguard like I do (see spoiler). I just happened to be building such a detachment for when I bring Cypher and Fallen as I wanted them to be modular into the rest of my Black Legion army list and I already have 3 HQ choices I like using already.



I would be fine with the fix being that they pick up Heretic/Adeptus Astartes to fix the issue. I can't see that breaking the game. Doesn't fix the other orphaned units though.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

I would be fine with the fix being that they pick up Heretic/Adeptus Astartes to fix the issue. I can't see that breaking the game. Doesn't fix the other orphaned units though.

Real easy fix for inquisition would have been to add a rule to Authority of the Inquisition that exempted them from Battle Brother rules. Inquisition forces often attach themselves to other organizations in their efforts, which is why they have that rule in the first place, and adding that to the rule would make so much sense and not really break anything in my opinion. You could then include a single assassin with an inquisition detachment if you did not want to have to field three in a vanguard. Although, I honestly think Independent Operative should also work that way (providing Battle Brother exemption), which would also fix assassins.

Okay but,,, what were people taking inquisitors with before they can't now? Usually it'd be other inquisitors or assassins, everything else would lose their special chapter tactic detachment rules. Or SoS.

SilverAlien wrote:
Okay but,,, what were people taking inquisitors with before they can't now? Usually it'd be other inquisitors or assassins, everything else would lose their special chapter tactic detachment rules. Or SoS.

Sometimes you just want one unit from a random Imperium army in your list, dont care about it not getting special rules, but you don't want to spend a CP on an Auxiliary Support Detachment. You need an HQ to make a legal detachment. In steps the Inquisitor!

This is just the sort of gerrymandering of the rules that the new Battle Brothers rule is trying to stop of course! They don't want you to easily take that one random powerful unit from a different army. Problem is Inquisitors have gotten screwed in the process.

I fully expect Inquisitors and some other units to get additional exceptions when the rule goes live though.

If you have to have a list of 10 or more units that need to be excluded from the rule then your rule is probably not the best.

I thought keywords were to make things easy... now I have to consult a chart to figure out if I can take my lone inquisitor. The inquisitor is not even a good unit so you can confirm I take him for lore friendly reasons and nothing else.

SilverAlien wrote:
Okay but,,, what were people taking inquisitors with before they can't now? Usually it'd be other inquisitors or assassins, everything else would lose their special chapter tactic detachment rules. Or SoS.

A lot of old Inquisition stuff like Crusaders and Death Cult Assassins are Ministorum units in 8th edition, so I'm sure a lot of people were putting those in combined detachments with the Inquisitors. Possibly stormtoroopers too. Running old style Inquisition forces is really damn painful at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
If you have to have a list of 10 or more units that need to be excluded from the rule then your rule is probably not the best.

I thought keywords were to make things easy... now I have to consult a chart to figure out if I can take my lone inquisitor. The inquisitor is not even a good unit so you can confirm I take him for lore friendly reasons and nothing else.

Yeah, this is a terrible rule. It mostly hurts fluffy players and does very little to address any real balance issues. Losing all faction benefits is usually enough to discourage soup detachments.

It does make running him more difficult. But run him in a detachment with some Fallen and it works out. It may seem a pain but him and the Fallen being so detached from other factions fits the fluff at least.