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.

BL site outright says, you get to inlcude inquisitors wihtout useing allies slot,

the rule will 99.9% be something like "any IOM army, or these select xenos, may feild an inquisitor in stead of their normal hq"

with maybe a few stipulations like, you must also bring a henchmen squad, or only certain inquisitors for certain xenos.


we also get eisenhorn (SP?) back as a special char!

 easysauce wrote:
BL site outright says, you get to inlcude inquisitors wihtout useing allies slot,

the rule will 99.9% be something like "any IOM army, or these select xenos, may feild an inquisitor in stead of their normal hq"

with maybe a few stipulations like, you must also bring a henchmen squad, or only certain inquisitors for certain xenos.

No, it doesn't. Show me where it outright says that. It isn't right here:

The rules in this book allow you to add the agents of the Inquisition into any Imperial force (as well as fielding them, begrudgingly, alongside the armies some of the less belligerent alien races), or field them as an army in their own right.

Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).

we also get eisenhorn (SP?) back as a special char!

Citation needed.

 easysauce wrote:

we also get eisenhorn (SP?) back as a special char!

I'm stupid levels of excited to see Eisenhorn. Here's hoping he'll have two profiles, like that one vamp from WHFB, to represent his slow fall from puritan to radical.

 pretre wrote:

Citation needed.

Eisenhorn fluff

That could just be a fluff bit of course, without any corresponding rules.

 Redemption wrote:
That could just be a fluff bit of course, without any corresponding rules.

I suppose you're right. If they're customizable enough, you could always make your own Eisenhorn.

 Thatguyoverthere wrote:
Eisenhorn fluff

SNAP!

to petre above... citation needed?
be a less snarky/condescending, and add 1+1


or did you not READ THE FULL PAGE PREVIEW OF EISENHORN ON BLACK LIBRARY????

this is going to be a "full codex" according to BL, it will have special chars, hq, troops, elite, fa, heavy just like any other, eishen horn WILL be one of those special chars...

including some old favourites who might be familiar to fans of Black Library books…)

and it links to eishenhorns unit description pic.... so that might be slight clue as to him being included....

Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).

so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)

Hate to break it to you but it's a pretty easy rule to write to make an allied commander your warlord. Just as easy as making him part of the detachment. You can't quote current rules as an example when no matter what the new rule will break the current rules.

Wouldnt it be cool if an inquisitorial Vendetta/Valkyrie was part of this?

 easysauce wrote:

Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).

so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)

Or they give you a rule that says 'You may choose an Inquisitor as your warlord even if they are in an allied detachment.'

Re: Eisenhorn, you were correct.

Argh, day/month/year date format in title so confusing . That said, I completely understand that this is an international forum, and the OP is from the UK, so it's a nice problem to have

So are there rules for Eisenhorn, or is this just fluff?

Because if you can field Eisenhorn, that would force a pretty quick push of these guys to the top of my to-do list of 40k, whenever I can get back into that.

 Ouze wrote:
So are there rules for Eisenhorn, or is this just fluff?

Unknown afaik.

 pretre wrote:

 easysauce wrote:

Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).

so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)

Or they give you a rule that says 'You may choose an Inquisitor as your warlord even if they are in an allied detachment.'

Re: Eisenhorn, you were correct.

again, except for the red hunters FAQ,

how can I ally SOB with red hunters, AND ally in an inquisitor to lead the SOB so they can BB ally with red hunters in first place?

there 100% will be a rule to have inquisitors leading your army, it will be a sub in rule, not an ally one, so that the FAW re redhunters+SOB makes sense.

it will read like "IOM armies may take x instead of y to lead their army" possibly with conditions like "must take a unit of henchmen" or "no ordos xenos when leading xenos armies" but it will not be a 3rd ally, it will be a sub in type rule.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Wouldnt it be cool if an inquisitorial Vendetta/Valkyrie was part of this?

It's plausible. We already know the Land Raider is in, and the Chimera is likely too. They did mention that they get 'their pick of the best transports from across the Imperium'.

I agree. I've said so over the course of this thread. The difference between us is that we do not KNOW that that is how it works.

I objected to you saying:
"BL site outright says, you get to inlcude inquisitors wihtout useing allies slot, "

Because it doesn't.

 easysauce wrote:

Speaking of Warlords, this codex allows you to have an Inquisitor leading your Imperial forces, even when he isn’t part of your Primary Detachment (would you argue with an Inquisitor about who’s in charge?).

so we get an inquisitor, as a warlord, when he isnt part of primary detachment. alies cannot be our warlord, hence he will 99.9% be a "sub in" hq slot or have other rules to let him be our warlord, while not being primary detachment (wont be an allie, as per red hunters FAQ, where red hunters can ally with SOB, if they have an inquisitor, cant have TWO allies, so ther WILL be a special rule to circumvent this... pretty DUH!!!)

Or, they just let the ally be the warlord (easy as putting "Allied INQ can be your warlord" in the INQ codex) they could also may an exeption as to making them a ally on top of a second ally...

They could do a lot of things.. Codex is there to break the rules of the rulebook. (and give stats)

Who would be the most likely allies for Eisenhorn? Because, fluff-wise I guess it would be Guard but this would be a great excuse to roll Sisters or GK.

I guess it doesn't matter, since Eisenhorn will ally with whoever he likes if it works out for him. This is how he do.

 pretre wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Guys, what's the deal with those priests? Do they always seem to carry a hammer? Is that picture from the black library site how they are supposed to look? Someone mentioned they are from the Sisters (an army I have never seen). How do they function in that army?

Priests carry a variety of weapons. Hammers are just one of them. They generally come stock with Chainsword/Pistol in most armies.

Oh I see. So those priests on the gw site are all Ministorum Priests then huh... not a fan of those models that's for sure...

I wonder if the rules will be different from the current priests. What are the rules, generally, for the current priests anyway? Reroll to hit?

 easysauce wrote:


how can I ally SOB with red hunters, AND ally in an inquisitor to lead the SOB so they can BB ally with red hunters in first place?

there 100% will be a rule to have inquisitors leading your army, it will be a sub in rule, not an ally one, so that the FAW re redhunters+SOB makes sense.

or they could go crazy and just make a sisters squad a troop choice for them (or for a spacific ordos...) nothing is 100% until it's there

dude... GW DID say it.. read the red hunters FAQ....

SOB can be BB with red hunters if they are led by an inquistitor,

they are not going to be 3 allied armies, they are going to be 2 allied armies, you cannot have 3 allies, with one ally being warlord for another, not to mention the force org chart problems with having 3 allies...

the obvious 99.99999% solution is simply stating "army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"

as oposed to totally rewriting allies for one codex...

it will be that way, because I know GW, and because that is what they have said on the BL site + FW faq's if you know how to read them in context of one another

So, it's seeming like this is more of a fully-fledged army than first thought. I think it's interesting that GW has added another one to the roster, wasn't expec- anticipating that. I think that pretre's prediction of them getting their own section in the store will be accurate.

Also, I really hope that the FW thing holds up, SoB could do some cool stuff with SM Battle Brothers. But it's starting to seem a bit questionable at this point. Though FW did seem very confident of the rule being correct in their email response, so hopefully it pans out.

 easysauce wrote:
dude... GW DID say it.. read the red hunters FAQ....

SOB can be BB with red hunters if they are led by an inquistitor,

they are not going to be 3 allied armies, they are going to be 2 allied armies, you cannot have 3 allies, with one ally being warlord for another, not to mention the force org chart problems with having 3 allies...

the obvious 99.99999% solution is simply stating "army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"

as oposed to totally rewriting allies for one codex...

it will be that way, because I know GW, and because that is what they have said on the BL site + FW faq's if you know how to read them in context of one another

No, a FW faq produced prior to the publication of the new codex said it. I think that's probably how it is going to work but to say that it is obvious and 100% is ridiculous.

 Ouze wrote:
Who would be the most likely allies for Eisenhorn? Because, fluff-wise I guess it would be Guard but this would be a great excuse to roll Sisters or GK.

I'm not sure that the SoB or GK would really approve of his pet Daemon.

I would say that Guard are a better fit, yeah. More easilym cowed by his authority and less uptight than the SoB or GK.

 easysauce wrote:
dude... GW DID say it.. read the red hunters FAQ....

SOB can be BB with red hunters if they are led by an inquistitor,

they are not going to be 3 allied armies, they are going to be 2 allied armies, you cannot have 3 allies, with one ally being warlord for another, not to mention the force org chart problems with having 3 allies...

the obvious 99.99999% solution is simply stating "army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"

as oposed to totally rewriting allies for one codex...

it will be that way, because I know GW, and because that is what they have said on the BL site + FW faq's if you know how to read them in context of one another

I read the FAQ, i'm not saying it won't happen, i'm saying it's not 100%or even 99%, because they COULD do several things.. because I too know GW, and the obvious isn't usually the correct

Super Newb wrote:

 pretre wrote:

Super Newb wrote:
Guys, what's the deal with those priests? Do they always seem to carry a hammer? Is that picture from the black library site how they are supposed to look? Someone mentioned they are from the Sisters (an army I have never seen). How do they function in that army?

Priests carry a variety of weapons. Hammers are just one of them. They generally come stock with Chainsword/Pistol in most armies.

Oh I see. So those priests on the gw site are all Ministorum Priests then huh... not a fan of those models that's for sure...

I wonder if the rules will be different from the current priests. What are the rules, generally, for the current priests anyway? Reroll to hit?

This is a good replacement(From the Alter of war fantasy)

Infact a bit of the Empire stuff can be good for inquisitors

Also, Mordheim priests are good as well.

they could staple two unicorn halfs together and tell us that the new codex too, but thats not how it will turn out.

I stand by my statement, and find it funny that now you say im prbably right, but you just take issue with how sure I am, as opposed to "citation required" type foolishness.

it is the way they will do it, because its the onlyway they can do it..

"army X can take inquisitor unit y in stead of {whatever} as their warlord"
is pretty open ended, there are a lot of ways GW could enact that "rule" I am simply stating how it will work, not the vehicle it uses to get there.

I do know that allies will not be the vehicle that puts an inquisitor HQ in almost every army, it will be a rule along the lines of the one I have posted.

I really hope inquisitore get something to shut down all those psychic buffs in the game. If anyne can get some stop psykers, it is them

 easysauce wrote:
I stand by my statement, and find it funny that now you say im prbably right, but you just take issue with how sure I am, as opposed to "citation required" type foolishness.

It isn't your statement. It is the statement that I and everyone else has been saying since page 1 of this thread and before. That being said, none of us can prove that that is how it is going to work and no one has said that that is how it is going to work.

Also, The Citation Needed was for Eisenhorn since he isn't in the BL blog page that I saw, but in the iBooks preview or whatever. I said you were correct on that after I was corrected.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I really hope inquisitore get something to shut down all those psychic buffs in the game. If anyne can get some stop psykers, it is them

Mmm. Old school psychic hoods.