Switch Theme:

Inquisition in November White Dwarf  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 LunarSol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Karthicus wrote:
I plan on getting this one as soon as the digital is released. If they are good enough to trade off for doctrines, I could build some BT + Inquis lists.



I can almost guarantee they will not be, lol. GW has basically never succeeded at making inquisition work, and they are so fractured and nonfunctional in 8th.

Just by keywords alone, their list has been so badly splintered it's impossible to field.

If you want to know my perfect wish list for an inquisition setup, it would be this:

IMPERIAL AGENTS

A detachment that includes 1 or more Inquisitor may be designated as an IMPERIAL AGENTS detachment. IMPERIAL AGENTS detachments gain no rules linked to <subfaction> traits, but may be composed of units with the following keywords:

INQUISITION
ASTRA MILITARUM
ADEPTA SORORITAS*
DEATHWATCH**
GREY KNIGHTS***
OFFICIO ASSASSINORUM
SISTERS OF SILENCE
ASTRA TELEPATHICA
ADEPTUS MINISTORUM

*Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO HERETICUS keyword are present
**Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO XENOS keyword are present
***Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO MALLEUS keyword are present

That, alongside a couple of rules updates, would give you a perfectly fluffy, but not OP/competitive, imperial agents matched play setup.


I mean.... the units would all become pretty much garbage that way. DW with no SIA? Even worse Grey Knights? Sisters with no prayers? They'd need something major to compensate.


nnnno? Deathwatch with no Mission Protocols, Grey Knights with no....what actually IS the GK chapter tactic? and Sisters with no Ordo tactic. None of those rules you listed are linked to <subfaction>. Though I suppose in the case of GK and DW you would need to specify that they don't get Mission Tactics/Grey Knight Thingy, because they don't have a <subfaction> choice.

And yeah, the goal would be to make Imperial Agents NOT the best way to run Deathwatch (for example) by granting them access to Imperial Guardsmen as troop choices. just to make the various Imperial Agents units actually fieldable outside of a way overcommitted detachment.


All those things are pretty critical to those units being mildly competitive. And they're really not then. Honestly, trying to jam all of them into a single codex seems like the hard way to go about it. It'd be substantially easier to just give the respective Ordos a rule that lets them be taken in associated detachments as if they had the keyword. Don't make Deathwatch fit into an Eisenhorn detachment; just let Eisenhorn be taken in a Deathwatch one.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





 LunarSol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 LunarSol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Karthicus wrote:
I plan on getting this one as soon as the digital is released. If they are good enough to trade off for doctrines, I could build some BT + Inquis lists.



I can almost guarantee they will not be, lol. GW has basically never succeeded at making inquisition work, and they are so fractured and nonfunctional in 8th.

Just by keywords alone, their list has been so badly splintered it's impossible to field.

If you want to know my perfect wish list for an inquisition setup, it would be this:

IMPERIAL AGENTS

A detachment that includes 1 or more Inquisitor may be designated as an IMPERIAL AGENTS detachment. IMPERIAL AGENTS detachments gain no rules linked to <subfaction> traits, but may be composed of units with the following keywords:

INQUISITION
ASTRA MILITARUM
ADEPTA SORORITAS*
DEATHWATCH**
GREY KNIGHTS***
OFFICIO ASSASSINORUM
SISTERS OF SILENCE
ASTRA TELEPATHICA
ADEPTUS MINISTORUM

*Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO HERETICUS keyword are present
**Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO XENOS keyword are present
***Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO MALLEUS keyword are present

That, alongside a couple of rules updates, would give you a perfectly fluffy, but not OP/competitive, imperial agents matched play setup.


I mean.... the units would all become pretty much garbage that way. DW with no SIA? Even worse Grey Knights? Sisters with no prayers? They'd need something major to compensate.


nnnno? Deathwatch with no Mission Protocols, Grey Knights with no....what actually IS the GK chapter tactic? and Sisters with no Ordo tactic. None of those rules you listed are linked to <subfaction>. Though I suppose in the case of GK and DW you would need to specify that they don't get Mission Tactics/Grey Knight Thingy, because they don't have a <subfaction> choice.

And yeah, the goal would be to make Imperial Agents NOT the best way to run Deathwatch (for example) by granting them access to Imperial Guardsmen as troop choices. just to make the various Imperial Agents units actually fieldable outside of a way overcommitted detachment.


All those things are pretty critical to those units being mildly competitive. And they're really not then. Honestly, trying to jam all of them into a single codex seems like the hard way to go about it. It'd be substantially easier to just give the respective Ordos a rule that lets them be taken in associated detachments as if they had the keyword. Don't make Deathwatch fit into an Eisenhorn detachment; just let Eisenhorn be taken in a Deathwatch one.


That would also work. However, I think you might have complaints about being able to add a unit like Acolytes to deathwatch.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




8ppm wannabe guardsmen with terrible rules and living in the Elite slot arent going to do a damn thing for Deathwatch.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Sterling191 wrote:
8ppm wannabe guardsmen with terrible rules and living in the Elite slot arent going to do a damn thing for Deathwatch.


All I'm saying is, if you add inquisiton to existing factions, you are opening up the possibility that they displace currently taken options within that faction. I've had it happen to my GSC, where there's currently no reason to take Neophytes when Brood Brothers exist, and it sucks.

I don't know that acolytes are going to be 8ppm guardsmen after this rule update. Maybe they'll be totally gone, since they don't make models for them anymore. Maybe they'll be updated to be good.

End of the day, if they want any imperial agents stuff to meaningfully exist, it needs to work in matched play 3 detachment limit games. Otherwise it will stay purely casual-only narrative play like it is now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/08 20:14:47


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 LunarSol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Spoiler:
 LunarSol wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
 Karthicus wrote:
I plan on getting this one as soon as the digital is released. If they are good enough to trade off for doctrines, I could build some BT + Inquis lists.



I can almost guarantee they will not be, lol. GW has basically never succeeded at making inquisition work, and they are so fractured and nonfunctional in 8th.

Just by keywords alone, their list has been so badly splintered it's impossible to field.

If you want to know my perfect wish list for an inquisition setup, it would be this:

IMPERIAL AGENTS

A detachment that includes 1 or more Inquisitor may be designated as an IMPERIAL AGENTS detachment. IMPERIAL AGENTS detachments gain no rules linked to <subfaction> traits, but may be composed of units with the following keywords:

INQUISITION
ASTRA MILITARUM
ADEPTA SORORITAS*
DEATHWATCH**
GREY KNIGHTS***
OFFICIO ASSASSINORUM
SISTERS OF SILENCE
ASTRA TELEPATHICA
ADEPTUS MINISTORUM

*Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO HERETICUS keyword are present
**Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO XENOS keyword are present
***Only if one or more INQUISITORS with the ORDO MALLEUS keyword are present

That, alongside a couple of rules updates, would give you a perfectly fluffy, but not OP/competitive, imperial agents matched play setup.


I mean.... the units would all become pretty much garbage that way. DW with no SIA? Even worse Grey Knights? Sisters with no prayers? They'd need something major to compensate.


nnnno? Deathwatch with no Mission Protocols, Grey Knights with no....what actually IS the GK chapter tactic? and Sisters with no Ordo tactic. None of those rules you listed are linked to <subfaction>. Though I suppose in the case of GK and DW you would need to specify that they don't get Mission Tactics/Grey Knight Thingy, because they don't have a <subfaction> choice.

And yeah, the goal would be to make Imperial Agents NOT the best way to run Deathwatch (for example) by granting them access to Imperial Guardsmen as troop choices. just to make the various Imperial Agents units actually fieldable outside of a way overcommitted detachment.


All those things are pretty critical to those units being mildly competitive. And they're really not then. Honestly, trying to jam all of them into a single codex seems like the hard way to go about it. It'd be substantially easier to just give the respective Ordos a rule that lets them be taken in associated detachments as if they had the keyword. Don't make Deathwatch fit into an Eisenhorn detachment; just let Eisenhorn be taken in a Deathwatch one.

I mean, it's really the ammo that keeps Deathwatch alive, not the selective rerolling of 1's to wound. Grey Knights LOL who cares? Sisters...are mediocre without the traits basically and rely on cheapish bodies with good weapon saturation.

That said, eliminating those things because the Inquisition is present is pretty fething stupid. I don't think even GW would be that daft but they never fail to surprise me nowadays.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




the_scotsman wrote:

All I'm saying is, if you add inquisiton to existing factions, you are opening up the possibility that they displace currently taken options within that faction.


You hilariously overestimate the capacity of Inquisition models to do anything on the table.They're not displacing anything.
   
Made in us
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM






Sterling191 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

All I'm saying is, if you add inquisiton to existing factions, you are opening up the possibility that they displace currently taken options within that faction.


You hilariously overestimate the capacity of Inquisition models to do anything on the table.They're not displacing anything.


deep striking the terminator storm shield character where he can mind control a knight into obliterating the thing standing next to it works though

Godforge custom 3d printing / professional level casting masters and design:
https://www.etsy.com/shop/GodForge 
   
Made in gb
Guarding Guardian



Coventry

I hope the work like assassins where they can be added to a list as a stratagem. Bonus points if the same point cost as assassins.

In terms of rules, buffs to Grey Knights and Sisters would make the valid outside of fluffy games. I'd love a reason to play them.

Eldar 2000
Harlequin 2000
GSC 2000
Raven Guard 5000
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Denison, Iowa

I'm just glad Inquisitor Kazamarov is still a thing. He's possibly one of the more unique models in all of 40k and he simply looks badass.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 cuda1179 wrote:
I'm just glad Inquisitor Kazamarov is still a thing. He's possibly one of the more unique models in all of 40k and he simply looks badass.

Unfortunately he lost his Bombardment thing I think. If he gets it back I would be so tempted to bring him in an Imperial Fists bombardment spam I've been theory crafting.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

From the WD:

Spoiler:


Spoiler:


If the point one goes agaisnt the rules, please MOD remove it:

Spoiler:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Assassins need the "you dont break doctrines" rule ASAP.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

That's exactly what I wanted to see on Assassins.

People said I was mad.

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Points costs unchanged for the basic units, but cheaper wargear.
   
Made in fi
Chaplain with Hate to Spare






A.T. wrote:
Points costs unchanged for the basic units, but cheaper wargear.

I really hope the poor Inquisitors finally get the invul and the Acolytes get a statline buff. But point costs being exactly the same is worrying.

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper. Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane. 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Well...I guess I did not think that Inquisition would be getting MORE restrictive with these rules, lol. Inquisitors are just so mind-bogglingly OP that they're 1 per detachment like tau commanders. Hot.

Also, that Cyclonic Torpedo, lol.

"And now, I shall spend fully half my army's CP on this once-per-game ultrastratagem, rolling randomly to see if I can do mortal wounds to models within

*Rolls 2d6*

TWO INCHES of this point!!!!!!!!!"
   
Made in de
Poisonous Tomb Scorpion






 Crimson wrote:
A.T. wrote:
Points costs unchanged for the basic units, but cheaper wargear.

I really hope the poor Inquisitors finally get the invul and the Acolytes get a statline buff. But point costs being exactly the same is worrying.


I'd be surprised if they get any changes to their options at all. Terminator armor is still limited to Malleus Inquisitors. That doesn't exactly raise confidence that options were added or opened up.

Plus the way GW writes rules these days, a White Dwarf codex adds stratagems, warlord traits, relics, psyker powers - all stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the actual datasheets.

8th ed is designed to be top heavy with a rotten foundation. No reason to believe the Inquisition will be any different.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of! 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Like imperial armies are starving for CP...

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





Also, to note here:

The effects of the Ordos appear to be exactly the same. Shame, because it means "Specialists" is the only one I'd ever not feel scummy for using.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Galas wrote:
Like imperial armies are starving for CP...


I just like that they looked at every other MW-generating stratagem that literally no human has ever once in their life thought about using, and went

"Wooooah now, these three CP stratagems SURE ARE OP, we gotta reign that gak in there tiger. How 'bout 4CP and once per game for this one huh?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 14:22:03


 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Yeah but imagine using all of them together agaisnt a Tau or a IH castle.

Is the kind of timy tactic that is worth a shot , at least until it goes one time.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




OTOH, its gonna be hilarious to drop in an IF orbital strike list for gaks and giggles. Quadruple nukes turn one? Yeah I'll give that a go at least once.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 14:28:04


 
   
Made in de
Gangly Grot Rebel




Nickin' 'ur stuff

Haha, "Few have the authority to condemn an entire world to the fires of exterminatus"

does 1d3 Mortal wounds on a 4+.....talking about fluff matching the gameplay

Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like soup. Now you put soup in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put soup into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now soup can flow or it can crash. Be soup, my friend. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Crimson wrote:
I really hope the poor Inquisitors finally get the invul and the Acolytes get a statline buff. But point costs being exactly the same is worrying.
It suggests the daemonhost is the same inoffensive bullet-catcher it always was. The Jokaeros weapon cost has shot right down though so that may have changed.

I wonder if they'll be able to take transports without having to ally in the rest of the army this time. I also would like to know why the inquisitors are one per detachment in their own detachment, that just adds to the awkwardness of trying to field them.


the_scotsman wrote:
TWO INCHES of this point!!!!!!!!!"
Might as well spend 5CPs for the reroll, give you the chance of inconveniencing units over a much larger radius.
   
Made in ru
Fresh-Faced New User




Why Canticles in same list with Doctrines?!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 14:49:30


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Good of an excuse as any to pick up Coteaz I suppose. Nothing earth shattering, but usable is usable.
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





So points changes:

Coteaz -10
Eisenhorn -20
Karamazov -35
Digital weapons becomes Jokaero Weapons -16
Inferno Pistol -5
Plasma pIstol -2
Combi-Flamer-3
Combi-Melta -4
Combi-Plasma -4
Flamer -3
Meltagun -3
Plasma Gun -2
Nemesis Hammer -7
Null Rod gone
Power Fist -11 (lol it was TWENTY POINTS)
Thunder Hammer -9

Hotshot Lasgun is still hilariously overcosted compared to a 0-point boltgun and 2-point storm bolter.

2 S3 Ap-2 D1 shots at 9" compared to 4 S4 Ap- D1 shots at 12" for half the cost...hmmmm....

Acolytes better be back up to 2W for 8ppm. An A2 guardsman with the ability to intercept wounds, no orders and no Troops slot is not an 8pt model.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 15:53:44


 
   
Made in gb
Wight Lord with the Sword of Kings






UK

Pleased can have inquisitors in other detachments - the rest looks pretty meh or worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 15:34:25


I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





the_scotsman wrote:
Malleus in Terminator -27.
Are you sure? It's listed at 91 in the index.

Seems like the weapons are costed for marines stats again rather than guard.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




Sterling191 wrote:
Assassins need the "you dont break doctrines" rule ASAP.


Not at all. Souping should have a stick and mono should have carrot. Exceptions for taking something outside your codex just extend the problems with soup.

Enjoy the greater flexibility of a wider collection of options or get the super-duper special snowflake bonuses. But you should have to choose.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot





A.T. wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Malleus in Terminator -27.
Are you sure? It's listed at 91 in the index.

Seems like the weapons are costed for marines stats again rather than guard.


I just did a quick look on Battlescribe - maybe it's wrong, or maybe the OM Inquisitor comes with some weapons as a baseline that cost points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
Assassins need the "you dont break doctrines" rule ASAP.


Not at all. Souping should have a stick and mono should have carrot. Exceptions for taking something outside your codex just extend the problems with soup.

Enjoy the greater flexibility of a wider collection of options or get the super-duper special snowflake bonuses. But you should have to choose.


That would only happen if everyone had super duper no-soup bonuses.

But not even CSM are going to get them, lol. Spike tax FTW.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/11/11 15:48:12


 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: