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.

So I haven't purchased C:INQ yet, and haven't had much experience with the GK codex, though from what I have seen, a malleus INQ (using the Rex model from FW /drool) sounds like a fun addition to the IG army I have just started building (it is using DKOK models though with IG codex)

Your only minor problem with Rex is that the shield will be purely decorative since no Inquisitor has access to combat/storm shields sadly. However you're right that the codex seems to make a good addition to another army or a good small army.

I don't mind that the shield would be decorative. I can't get the idea of a INQ leading my IG. Going to go get C:INQ now, even if it slightly gimps my 1850 list haha.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Valeria - who appears in two Codexes fluff has been dropped - not only was she cool but now the only way to field an Ordo Xenos Special Character is through the Grey Knights Codex? Also another female SC gone - sad days.........

Well. As said. Post your thanks over at Chapterhouse Studios. Do it again when things like Doom of Malan'tai drop from the Tyranid Codex. And again when Duke Sliscus and Lady Malys are gone from the next Dark Eldar book. And again when Old Zogwort vanishes from the next Ork Codex.

Let's practice... shall we? Thank! You! Chapterhouse Studios!

Oh, grow up, Zwei (and he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-he-post-nonsense-once-more).

GW changing policies to reduce gaps in their line is their choice, not CH's - it may be in response to their actions, but GW's choices are theirs alone. They could simply release models to fill these gaps, but that is apparently too complicated a notion...

snaggled wrote:

in my GK codex, under Psychic Barrage, it states:

"The strength of the attach increases by 1 for each additional Psyker in the unit beyond the first"

"The AP of the attack improves by 1 for each additional Psyker in the unit beyond the first"

In the inquisition codex, under Psychic Barrage, it states:

“If you want to manifest this psychic power you must select a model that knows this psychic power to take the psychic test, and measure range, line of sight etc. from him. The Strength and AP of Psychic Barrage both increase by 1 for each model in the unit that knows this power after the first”

Which is not the same thing.

Meh, it's sloppy, but correct. What is an increase in Armor Penetration? Surely not a decrease in the effectiveness of what armor the shot can penetrate! When AP increases, it gets better, so they number gets lower.

There is a chance that future models are created and rules added/changed as required. That is the joy of digital downloads. Eventually have that female INQ added, and Eisenhorn, as well as artificer armor choices etc.

Small chance I know, but one can hope.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?

Given the content, the same person who wrote the Grey Knight book?

It actually is the new dream team of GW, but we only know their pseudonyms:
Mr. Copy and Mr. Paste.
Expect to see many more of their works in the future, esp. digital releases.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?

Given the content, the same person who wrote the Grey Knight book?

It actually is the new dream team of GW, but we only know their pseudonyms:
Mr. Copy and Mr. Paste.
Expect to see many more of their works in the future, esp. digital releases.

I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol

 Rippy wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Troike wrote:
Any idea who wrote it? Did it say in the iTunes version?

Given the content, the same person who wrote the Grey Knight book?

It actually is the new dream team of GW, but we only know their pseudonyms:
Mr. Copy and Mr. Paste.
Expect to see many more of their works in the future, esp. digital releases.

I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol

Agreed. Though good luck convincing Kroot of that is nigh-impossible.

 Rippy wrote:
I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol

In other words, in a few years, you expect this "Codex: Inquisition" to be updated to 6th edition

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Rippy wrote:
I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th. Once that happens I expect massive updates to C:INQ.... Even if it is just more copy and paste lol

In other words, in a few years, you expect this "Codex: Inquisition" to be updated to 6th edition

In a very out of context way, I guess it is lol

 Dysartes wrote:


Oh, grow up, Zwei (and he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-he-post-nonsense-once-more).

GW changing policies to reduce gaps in their line is their choice, not CH's - it may be in response to their actions, but GW's choices are theirs alone. They could simply release models to fill these gaps, but that is apparently too complicated a notion...

Sure they could release models. But that's not the point.

Releasing rules / characters without rules used to be the place where creative hobbyists could shine. These gaps were done with a purpose, so that people could kitbash and convert and show off their own.

In that, Chapterhouse is not doing any harm to GW, who admittedly could just put out a model and be done with it (or pull the rules).

The true tragedy is that freeloaders like Chapterhouse, by sticking their greedy tentacles into any opening of others (instead of doing something creative of their own) are pissing on the creative spirit of the people in this hobby, diminishing the gaps for "making things your own" that used to be the special quality that made this hobby stand apart from other past times.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:


Oh, grow up, Zwei (and he-who-shall-not-be-named-lest-he-post-nonsense-once-more).

GW changing policies to reduce gaps in their line is their choice, not CH's - it may be in response to their actions, but GW's choices are theirs alone. They could simply release models to fill these gaps, but that is apparently too complicated a notion...

Sure they could release models. But that's not the point.

Releasing rules / characters without rules used to be the place where creative hobbyists could shine. These gaps were done with a purpose, so that people could kitbash and convert and show off their own.

In that, Chapterhouse is not doing any harm to GW, who admittedly could just put out a model and be done with it (or pull the rules).

The true tragedy is that freeloaders like Chapterhouse, by sticking their greedy tentacles into any opening of others (instead of doing something creative of their own) are pissing on the creative spirit of the people in this hobby, diminishing the gaps for "making things your own" that used to be the special quality that made this hobby stand apart from other past times.

Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good rant there buddy, will you?

 azreal13 wrote:


Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good rant there buddy, will you?

Funny. Should've been the response to the last 10 pages or so of this thread ranting about Codex Inquisition.

But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).

 Rippy wrote:

I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th.

Why? I understand that it could be confusing if same special characters had different rules in different books, but other than that I see no issue. Besides, I don't think that anyone was asking complete rewrite, merely a few more options and point adjustments. If they added relics they could have just as easily added forcefields.

 pretre wrote:
Weird, Coteaz and Karamazov don't have set Warlord Traits.

Yes, they do. Each one has the Preferred Enemy trait for their Ordo.

 Crimson wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

I know that comment is tongue in cheek, but to be fair, GW can't change it that much until the GK codex is updated for 6th.

Why? I understand that it could be confusing if same special characters had different rules in different books, but other than that I see no issue. Besides, I don't think that anyone was asking complete rewrite, merely a few more options and point adjustments. If they added relics they could have just as easily added forcefields.

Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.

 Rippy wrote:

Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.

No, because GK could just take these new, improved Inquisitors as allies.

 Kroothawk wrote:
It actually is the new dream team of GW, but we only know their pseudonyms:
Mr. Copy and Mr. Paste.

Mr. Copy and Dr. Paste !

 Zweischneid wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


Don't let those pesky facts get in the way of a good rant there buddy, will you?

Funny. Should've been the response to the last 10 pages or so of this thread ranting about Codex Inquisition.

But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).

Do I have to repost my original comment?

It was a civil case, so even if found guilty on ALL counts CHS would never have been "criminals." Additionally, they weren't found guilty on all counts were they? They were found guilty in a minority of counts, before appeal.

That would be an appeal where they are now represented by one of the foremost IP law firms in the US pro bono and better qualified minds than mine are tipping them to overturn still more of those findings that were said to infringe in GW.

So, while you might have a negative opinion of CHS, it is both a fact and a matter of law that in most incidences they were doing nothing wrong, and in those cases where they were found to have crossed the line by an uneducated jury, it looks like there is a fair chance they will actually be cleared in the final analysis.

Honestly Zwei, you throw up some pretty fething gak arguments in defence of GW some times, but this is surely beneath you?

 Crimson wrote:

 Rippy wrote:

Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.

No, because GK could just take these new, improved Inquisitors as allies.

Right, because GK Inquisitor players would really be happy with having to buy a book to get the better options.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On a different note, the "no model = no rules" thing is a result of the CHS lawsuit case, regardless of who is to blame, GW will not be heading down that road anymore to prevent a repeat of it. I'm not blaming anyone here, just stating that the case itself as led to a change in how GW operates.

Digital Editions also said that they couldn't change the BA codex at all since it would invalidate a book that was on sale "before its time", so the same issue may have applied here. They could've been fairly restricted in terms of doing new things.

 Rippy wrote:

Can you imagine the community back lash if Inqs in this codex were far superior to the ones in C:GK? The tears would cause the need for a new Moses to create a boat and save 2 of every troop choice before the world floods completely.

Noah built the Ark. Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and parted the Red Sea.

As to the no models=no rules, does it really matter that it was instigated by the CHS case? Which I'm not sure is provable since they were still releasing rules without models nearly a year into the suit.
Until GW actually makes a statement to confirm, it's speculation which really has no place in this thread.

Whatever the reason its sad Although its very annoying that GW never bothered to make models for Valeria or indeed Lady Malys

Well it looks like the good people of Dakka have saved me $25.

Darn shame.

This could have been so, so good.

Ah well, it's not like I've played in the last 2 years anyway.

So uh... what exactly is in this book? Can someone can point me to a summary somewhere?

Been trying to keep track, but I really don't have the willpower to muscle through the "this codex sucks" stuff right now.

Check my post history, I posted one a while back. (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/560383/6255061.page#6255061) ClockworkZion did one on his blog as well.

 Zweischneid wrote:

But I guess ranting about criminals like Chapterhouse that actually deserve the heat isn't as accepted as bashing GW for daring to publish products (based on their own IP).

Wow.

You've really gone off the deep end and into crazy town.

 pretre wrote:
Check my post history, I posted one a while back. (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/560383/6255061.page#6255061) ClockworkZion did one on his blog as well.

http://www.talkwargaming.com/2013/11/review-codex-inquisition.html

 Kroothawk wrote:
No IST

 Jadenim wrote:
2) No dedicated IST.

IST's don't exist.

 Kroothawk wrote:
10 years ago, this would have been a WD article with "you can attach the Inquisition units to other Imperial armies as well" plus wargear plus warlord tables, 5 pages max.

10 years ago this was a WD article. Before the DH Codex came out Inquisitors + Henchmen appeared in a WD article.