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.

 easysauce wrote:
HAve we seen picks of what replaces grand strategy on the GM's?

No grand strategy any more. at least not under his own special rules.

 easysauce wrote:
HAve we seen picks of what replaces grand strategy on the GM's?

As far as I know nothing replaces it

 easysauce wrote:
HAve we seen picks of what replaces grand strategy on the GM's?

From what I can see Grand Strategy is outright gone, there was no replacement and much of the stuff that it gave (i.e. counterattack) was put into Warlord Traits instead. So the GM now only has an extra attack and ML over the Brother Captain.

I do have a question about the (rumored) Nemesis Strike Force detachment. I do not see anything stating that a IC from an ally could not join the force and thus deepstrike on turn one. Maybe I am missing something, but that seems fun to try out.

Correct me if I am wrong... at work so have not had time to really look into it.

azactaylor wrote:
I do have a question about the (rumored) Nemesis Strike Force detachment. I do not see anything stating that a IC from an ally could not join the force and thus deepstrike on turn one. Maybe I am missing something, but that seems fun to try out.

Correct me if I am wrong... at work so have not had time to really look into it.

IC for all rules purposes are part of that squad or something like that. so yeah a Inq in T armor can DS t1 if attached to them

Now the interesting question is if an IC in the formation would still benefit if attached to a unit not in the formation. Goes back to the whole 'is a SM IC in a Tau unit still an SM unit' argument but if so, this book may have an actual interesting use. I rather doubt most people will interpret it that way though.

Indeed. I also put up a ymdc thread about a similar thing with pe and seems to have the same consensus

The other issue that I have atm is that Inquisition still does not have an FAQ bringing their codex more up to date with the new psychic phase... What kind of consensus are we making on that?

azactaylor wrote:
The other issue that I have atm is that Inquisition still does not have an FAQ bringing their codex more up to date with the new psychic phase... What kind of consensus are we making on that?

They're going to ask you to pay for an updated version in a couple of months.

I wouldn't count on any FAQ'ing.. it's not like they have made any real ones for a year.

Still no 7th rulebook FAQ.. most telling.

The inquisition book gets stealth updates.... i though it was already updated to use demonology

Is it updated through BlackLibrary... maybe I need to download it again!

 Desubot wrote:
The inquisition book gets stealth updates.... i though it was already updated to use demonology

Yes it was. Can only use sanctic tough and as far as i can i see they don't have the rule that prevents perils on any roll of doubles or more


Automatically Appended Next Post:

azactaylor wrote:
Is it updated through BlackLibrary... maybe I need to download it again!

Redownloading should work

Anyone else thinking that, if you're running Paladins, now would a great time to give them all nemesis falchions? With the change to hammer hand, coupled with the massive points reductions of the Apothecary, you could kit out a 10 man paladin squad with 4 psycannons, 2 hammers, the Bro Banner, Apothecary, and 7 nemesis falchions for 730 points.

Thats a RIDICULOUS amount of S6 AP3 attacks on the charge (35 if I have my math right, and thats not counting the 8 attacks from the hammer guys you'll have...)

I believe this will be my last question... after reading through the rule book under detachments, and then looking at the Nemesis strike force.

Wouldn't the troops get objective secured if chosen as your primary detachment? The way the rules read in the BRB it would seem that way. I have just noticed people saying that it would not... Thoughts?

Only the CAD in the BRB gives ObSec is what people are arguing.

Special faction specific ones dont.

meh, objective secured doesnt seem to matter. ive played 10 game sof 7th now and never once had an issue where one side had obsec and the other didnt and they were both fighting fot an objective.

ive run several unbound armies that werent cheesy at all, they were just collections of whatever i want. usually its fairly standard but with no HQ or something along those lines. they havent all been the most effective, but ive never felt jilted without obsec

azactaylor wrote:
I believe this will be my last question... after reading through the rule book under detachments, and then looking at the Nemesis strike force.

Wouldn't the troops get objective secured if chosen as your primary detachment? The way the rules read in the BRB it would seem that way. I have just noticed people saying that it would not... Thoughts?

Yep, Wren is right.

A Detachment has Command Benefits. The CB of the CAD is Objective Secured. The GK Detachment does not list this CB.

Does anyone know if there is a Sustained attack (Daemonic Infestation) style rule in the new codex, or is that just a false rumor?

What am I going to do with all those Psycannon models :(

 jetstumpy wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a Sustained attack (Daemonic Infestation) style rule in the new codex, or is that just a false rumor?

That would imply an element of flavor to the codex. It's quite bland. It's Jeremy Irons Breakfast Cereal bland.

 daedalus wrote:

 jetstumpy wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a Sustained attack (Daemonic Infestation) style rule in the new codex, or is that just a false rumor?

That would imply an element of flavor to the codex. It's quite bland. It's Jeremy Irons Breakfast Cereal bland.

Well, I may store-rule it in, just so Daemon players will play me.

 jetstumpy wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 jetstumpy wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a Sustained attack (Daemonic Infestation) style rule in the new codex, or is that just a false rumor?

That would imply an element of flavor to the codex. It's quite bland. It's Jeremy Irons Breakfast Cereal bland.

Well, I may store-rule it in, just so Daemon players will play me.

Pretty sure you will not have to store rule it in... as the codex is not that great! Maybe have them play you first! The WD battle report proved that GK cannot even kill the army it was meant to kill.

azactaylor wrote:

 jetstumpy wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 jetstumpy wrote:
Does anyone know if there is a Sustained attack (Daemonic Infestation) style rule in the new codex, or is that just a false rumor?

That would imply an element of flavor to the codex. It's quite bland. It's Jeremy Irons Breakfast Cereal bland.

Well, I may store-rule it in, just so Daemon players will play me.

Pretty sure you will not have to store rule it in... as the codex is not that great! Maybe have them play you first! The WD battle report proved that GK cannot even kill the army it was meant to kill.

Don't quite know what you're talking about, the Codex is looking really awesome. The White Dwarf example is a pretty poor one to use to try and say otherwise, for several reasons. First, the guy's list was pretty awful, secondly, he (the player) made some pretty horrible mistakes early on, mistakes that he (the player) admits to making.
That comes off as meaner than I intended it to, but I'll stand by my points. I'm thrilled with the codex from what I've seen so far.

Over all, I think if you had codex GK before, and wanted to PLAY GK"s you got a lot more out of this dex,


if you had codex GK before, and wanted to play codex inquisition or codex coteaz + 24pts of troops and other stuff you might be a bit miffed.

personally, my GK army that always took 3 DK's is creaming its pants since now I can take 4 dk's, get 4++ on them, the heavy psycannon is awesome now! and I can DS turn one with stuff.

will be nice to take my libbys off the shelf too.

There was a Bat-Rep a few pages back where they did real well.

 Anpu42 wrote:
There was a Bat-Rep a few pages back where they did real well.

Daemons or Grey Knights? I missed that post.

 jetstumpy wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
There was a Bat-Rep a few pages back where they did real well.

Daemons or Grey Knights? I missed that post.

Grey Knights, he was mostly posting it tell how he wrecked [or was wrecked] two Land Raiders and Vindicator iirc.

All of the close combat weapons have been nerfed... no psy ammo...

The only Inquisition I ran was Coteaz, and I can easily replace him with another Libby. Power armor guys went up in points? That makes a ton of since, especially with them being so over powered.

Dreadknights going down in points, well that will be great because I usually run 2-3. However, I will probably switch to Termies for the troops seeing as it is worth the 55 points to upgrade the 5 power armor dudes to terminators.

I am not saying the codex is complete crap, just that it is not as detrimental to Daemons as it once was! It will be a bottom mid tier at best... and will turn into a mostly ally army.

After reading through all of the info and points cost, my question now is this:

Even though Paladin Apothecaries are muuuuuch cheaper, is it even worth taking paladins now that normal terminators are so much cheaper? Before, the 15pt bump to add +1 WS and +1W was definitely worth it. Now, it is +22 pts for that upgrade and is looking a lot less attractive since I could just spend an additional 11 pts and get another body that can't be 1 shotted, add 2 attacks in CC, and 2 storm bolter shots.

What do you guys think?