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.

 Jadenim wrote:
The best thing they could do with Inquistors would probably be to add them to the Imperial Guard book as an alternative HQ+retinue. Maybe with a stratagem/warlord trait that lets them treat x points/pl of Marines as having a matching keyword.

Or, here's a radical idea, they could put Inquisitors and their retinues into a kind of compilation book that includes all the smaller 40K Imperial factions & forces which don't merit a full codex of their own, which all Imperial factions would have access to thanks to the way 8th Ed functions. They could call it "Codex: Regal Operatives" perhaps...

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m sure I saw somewhere that GSC is out before Christmas?

I doubt it. The videos for Wrath and Rapture, Calgar and Vigilus Defiant all say "December", while the GSC video only says "the day of ascension draws near". Looking like Jan/Feb for them.

I may have confused those dates then.

Ah well! All the more time to save up!

 Yodhrin wrote:
and it still seems vaguely daft that whole armies of them are running around now given their original background and their numbers. 40K is absolutely full of things that, strictly speaking, really "don't belong" in a system that's supposedly representing large scale military conflicts, but which exist within it anyway because they're cool and because the actual tabletop we play on typically limits itself to platoon or company sized forces, at which scale loads of things can comfortably muster a useful fighting force.

Frankly it sounds to me more like whoever's presently making the decisions in the studio just doesn't care for Agents and is casting about trying to find some kind of justification for their animus beyond simple dislike.

What's the systej that's supposea to represent big battles? Gw doesn't have one atm. 40k is super small skirmish. When 300 models is considered big and typical engagement is more like thousands if not tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands not being rare 40k is super zoomed up tiny piece of battle.

40k rules also don#t even represenp big battle commanding

On that count, I’m still hoping for Epic to make a proper return.

It’s a brilliant system (well, except Epic 40k), and it works nicely to put one in the shoes of a military overlord, unconcerned with casualties compared to objectives.

We needs it, precious, needs it!

By their own logic special characters and primarchs shouldn’t exist on the table top because they wouldn’t be involved in such small skirmishes and their presence would be extremely rare. GW is drunk

I'd rather see Warmaster or AoS Warmaster return before Epic.

No wait hear me out I love Epic -heck Titan Legions/Epic was my gateway into wargaming. However today I feel that 40K is getting spread thick and thin. There's already a LOT on its plate and I feel that Warmaster gives us afew things:

1) It brings back rank and file fighting in a scale that actually works REALLY well for rank and file. Both in terms of visual display, cost to build rank and file units and in the whole general style of that scale. I think its a fantastic way to give back to the fantasy segment something that AoS has changed/lost.

2) Whilst GW is marching full on with AoS; Warmaster could be an attempt for them to have an official Warhammer Classic game if they so wished. Then again they might simply make AoS into Warmaster scale. Either way honestly works

3) It builds right off the Total War experience so GW could push that game out in the next year or two and still beat the 3rd games launch and also tap into that market interest right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
By their own logic special characters and primarchs shouldn’t exist on the table top because they wouldn’t be involved in such small skirmishes and their presence would be extremely rare. GW is drunk

Not really, its openly accepted that the models we use likely represent variable numbers of real world models in the world. So for Tyranids those 30 gaunts might represent 30,000 whilst for the Marine player a marine might represent 5 or 10 marines etc.. So in that setting heroes makes full sense, one mighty lord who is an army unto themselves striding to war in a major conflict.

Assassins though, as a snigle dedicated faction, is where it breaks because they are not supposed to represent hundreds of warriors

CassianSol wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
"Necrons don't seem to be getting much love from GW (as usual). Guess it's time to start a fluffy imperium list, but one I could still field in a game. I could buy those imperial assassin models I really like the look of......"

Why do I even bother. Glad my friend who collects GK might have a usable army tho.

Dude you have a pretty full and reasonably modern set of models. You've received a new model this year. Chapter approved hasn't even come out yet. Necrons are far from the most ignored factions.

Indeed - anything in the range still metal?

Unless you are marine faction its a major thing to have mostly plastic models.

 Overread wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
By their own logic special characters and primarchs shouldn’t exist on the table top because they wouldn’t be involved in such small skirmishes and their presence would be extremely rare. GW is drunk

Not really, its openly accepted that the models we use likely represent variable numbers of real world models in the world.

No, a small minority cling to a random designer side comment/musing in a rulebook several editions back (possibly for fantasy battle, which doesn't even exist anymore). The game rules are set up to function as one to one.

So for Tyranids those 30 gaunts might represent 30,000 whilst for the Marine player a marine might represent 5 or 10 marines etc.. So in that setting heroes makes full sense, one mighty lord who is an army unto themselves striding to war in a major conflict.

Assassins though, as a snigle dedicated faction, is where it breaks because they are not supposed to represent hundreds of warriors

Assassins aren't even vaguely the only place where it breaks down. Marines themselves don't work as any kind of multiplied representation, as we know the hard limit on a chapter's numbers (1000 line soldiers + a couple dozen officers/specialists) and their organizational breakdown to the squad level. A codex squad is 10 or a demi-squad of 5. While a squad might be less than 10 due to casualties, it is _never_ 25, 50 or 100 or the result of any other multiplier.

tneva82 wrote:

What's the systej that's supposea to represent big battles? Gw doesn't have one atm.

rules for Apocalypse were published in Chapter Approved 2017 and they are very good.

Also Titanicus is a thing. And some people still play Epic.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
The best thing they could do with Inquistors would probably be to add them to the Imperial Guard book as an alternative HQ+retinue. Maybe with a stratagem/warlord trait that lets them treat x points/pl of Marines as having a matching keyword.

Or, here's a radical idea, they could put Inquisitors and their retinues into a kind of compilation book that includes all the smaller 40K Imperial factions & forces which don't merit a full codex of their own, which all Imperial factions would have access to thanks to the way 8th Ed functions. They could call it "Codex: Regal Operatives" perhaps...

The even better way is just run these oddbods as a counts-as character in your Marine or Guard army. There are existing rules to cover many options, tonnes of modelling potential and the synergies in-game exist already.

I have an Inquisitor in Terminator Armour for example. I just run him as a Deathwatch Captain, with Digital Lasers represented by the Powerfist with Meltagun, and Combi-Needler represented by Combi Weapon with Special Issue Ammunition. Paint scheme differs to his minions, so what? He’s a heroic leader who has deputised these dudes for the day, and it’s even fluffy for Deathwatch and Inquistors to work together.

I also use Guard Commander and Command Squad rules to represent a different Inquisitor and retinue I’ve converted. Again, all the rules I need exist to cater for his personal medic, gunner and bodyguards. They synergise with the army. What’s not to love?

You don’t actually need a Codex for a lot of stuff. Not everything needs to be doubleplus special with 19 special rules. There’s a lot of room to do bonkers conversions and still use existing rules and make things useful in-game.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 CaptainBetts wrote:

 Luciferian wrote:
If you read the reddit post a generous user linked to some pages back, it sounds like they just don't like the idea of certain Imperial Agent type units on a full fledged battlefield. They were specifically referring to Rogue Traders, but they said something along the lines of they make what they think is cool and they don't think dudes/dudettes with rapiers and dueling pistols belong in that context.

That was me who made the massive reddit post. That's pretty much correct - they said models like inquisition, rogue traders, assassins etc. don't fit very well at all. They used Inquisitor Eisenhorn as their main example actually.

That would be Inquisitor Eisenhorn who led a full-scale military invasion of a Xenos world that included several other Inquisitors?

See, this is the problem with their new stance - it's new, and makes no sense because GW themselves have provided plenty of examples in the fiction of it being just utterly wrong. Rogue Traders often have private armies on the scale of Guard regiments, pacts with Marine chapters, access to Xenos mercenaries etc. Inquisitors command armies as a matter of course. Assassins have been part of the 40K system since 2nd edition and have had their own codex several times.

Not just that, but the entire -point- of Rogue Traders is to go out like Privateers and help expand the Imperium.

Yeah, baffling choice there. But man an 'agents' book could have been amazing. And even speaking as a Custodes player I wish they'd done one instead of Custodes as separate. I think they do work better thematically as a single strike team to buff up an existing Imperial force, or lead it. Just like Inquisition or whatever.

And even more baffling with GW's insistence on "Narrative" being something to push, where things like Rogue Trader or Inquisition expeditions would make even more sense!

I have nothing against Custodes players, and their army concept is fine (even if I find them unpleasant to play against crunch-wise), but I feel the existence of the Custodes and IK codices counters any argument based on "This faction shouldn't compose an entire army, it makes no sense in the narrative". If they don't want to admit it's just not on their radar/preference list, so be it, but the fact they supplied such a useless excuse is a bit worrying.

 Overread wrote:

Not really, its openly accepted that the models we use likely represent variable numbers of real world models in the world. So for Tyranids those 30 gaunts might represent 30,000 whilst for the Marine player a marine might represent 5 or 10 marines etc..

That's never been a thing in 40k, and wouldn't really make much sense with the way units are organised in the game compared to the fluff.

I am really bummed about the no Imperial Agents. I was really hyped that the recent appearances of Rogue Traders were just foreshadowing their full scale arrival in 40K. And of course the Inquisition is possibly my favourite thing in the setting. This is just sad.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I have nothing against Custodes players, and their army concept is fine (even if I find them unpleasant to play against crunch-wise), but I feel the existence of the Custodes and IK codices counters any argument based on "This faction shouldn't compose an entire army, it makes no sense in the narrative". If they don't want to admit it's just not on their radar/preference list, so be it, but the fact they supplied such a useless excuse is a bit worrying.

Totally agree.
If Inquisitors and assassins don't belong on the battlefield, take out GSC and Custodes. Knights have a place, however, as much as their presence is often annoying.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
The best thing they could do with Inquistors would probably be to add them to the Imperial Guard book as an alternative HQ+retinue. Maybe with a stratagem/warlord trait that lets them treat x points/pl of Marines as having a matching keyword.

Or, here's a radical idea, they could put Inquisitors and their retinues into a kind of compilation book that includes all the smaller 40K Imperial factions & forces which don't merit a full codex of their own, which all Imperial factions would have access to thanks to the way 8th Ed functions. They could call it "Codex: Regal Operatives" perhaps...

The even better way is just run these oddbods as a counts-as character in your Marine or Guard army. There are existing rules to cover many options, tonnes of modelling potential and the synergies in-game exist already.

I have an Inquisitor in Terminator Armour for example. I just run him as a Deathwatch Captain, with Digital Lasers represented by the Powerfist with Meltagun, and Combi-Needler represented by Combi Weapon with Special Issue Ammunition. Paint scheme differs to his minions, so what? He’s a heroic leader who has deputised these dudes for the day, and it’s even fluffy for Deathwatch and Inquistors to work together.

I also use Guard Commander and Command Squad rules to represent a different Inquisitor and retinue I’ve converted. Again, all the rules I need exist to cater for his personal medic, gunner and bodyguards. They synergise with the army. What’s not to love?

You don’t actually need a Codex for a lot of stuff. Not everything needs to be doubleplus special with 19 special rules. There’s a lot of room to do bonkers conversions and still use existing rules and make things useful in-game.

And you could just do a Mechanicus army with Counts As as well(dead easy - Straken for a Techpriest, Scions for Skitarii, chuck in some SM Centurions for Secutors, and grab some Relic vehicles from FW to make them seem fancier), does that mean they shouldn't have bothered giving them a range and codex of their own?

Problems with your approach:

1. Counts As is great, but it's rarely as good as actual, proper, bespoke, thematic rules.
2. Counts As doesn't create a new range of models and a release slot to sell them to us.
3. There are still plenty of folk out there who consider stuff like Counts As as being tantamount to cheating, or at best consider it confusing and "unofficial"(which to some is as good as saying "banned") and will refuse to play against them, which they cannot get away with so easily if it's an actual proper release.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The even better way is just run these oddbods as a counts-as...

Counts-as is never the answer.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I have nothing against Custodes players, and their army concept is fine (even if I find them unpleasant to play against crunch-wise), but I feel the existence of the Custodes and IK codices counters any argument based on "This faction shouldn't compose an entire army, it makes no sense in the narrative". If they don't want to admit it's just not on their radar/preference list, so be it, but the fact they supplied such a useless excuse is a bit worrying.

Totally agree.
If Inquisitors and assassins don't belong on the battlefield, take out GSC and Custodes. Knights have a place, however, as much as their presence is often annoying.

Totally Disagree

Inquisitors are often exteremely powerful combatants that lead warbands, companies or entire armies, their rules should reflect that once again.
They provide variety - rather than just differrent coloured Marines for instance that some seem to favour.

Its laughable to suggest removing genestealer Cults given that they are exactly the enemy that confront pretty much ALL factions at different levels.

Custodes are a huge and powerful fighting force, far more numerous than any single Space Marine Chapter. Like Astartes and Sororitas they have huge spiritual and inspirational effects on other warriros of the Imperium, acting a a powerful force multiplier before they even slay an enemy.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
I have nothing against Custodes players, and their army concept is fine (even if I find them unpleasant to play against crunch-wise), but I feel the existence of the Custodes and IK codices counters any argument based on "This faction shouldn't compose an entire army, it makes no sense in the narrative". If they don't want to admit it's just not on their radar/preference list, so be it, but the fact they supplied such a useless excuse is a bit worrying.

Totally agree.
If Inquisitors and assassins don't belong on the battlefield, take out GSC and Custodes. Knights have a place, however, as much as their presence is often annoying.

Totally Disagree

Inquisitors are often exteremely powerful combatants that lead warbands, companies or entire armies, their rules should reflect that once again.
They provide variety - rather than just differrent coloured Marines for instance that some seem to favour.

Its laughable to suggest removing genestealer Cults given that they are exactly the enemy that confront pretty much ALL factions at different levels.

Custodes are a huge and powerful fighting force, far more numerous than any single Space Marine Chapter. Like Astartes and Sororitas they have huge spiritual and inspirational effects on other warriros of the Imperium, acting a a powerful force multiplier before they even slay an enemy.

You're missing their point - the argument is not "if we can't have Inquisitors et al, take away [other things]", it's "given [other things] exist as armies, it's ludicrous we can't have Inquisitors et al".

Internal logical consistency?

From GW?

HAHAHAHHAHAHA, oh, boy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
The even better way is just run these oddbods as a counts-as...

Counts-as is never the answer.

Well, if you wanna play 8th then it’s literally the only way right answer right now. You do you.

Another nail in the coffin of old marines. The writing was on the wall as soon as they announced the Adeptus Restartes with 8th edition and I'm actually surprised that it took this long to make good on that pre-release interview quote that mentioned the conversion of the now Secondus marines into Primaris. I'm a bit torn on the idea though as I like the look and scaling of the Mk X primaris but not the backstory.

Was somebody talking about the legacy of the Chapterhouse ruling here? Because yeah, that has triggered some sort if breakdown in GW. I love everything they do nowadays...except the names...the bloody names.

And they can’t seriously leave inquisitors out of the game can they?

 warboss wrote:
Another nail in the coffin of old marines. The writing was on the wall as soon as they announced the Adeptus Restartes with 8th edition and I'm actually surprised that it took this long to make good on that pre-release interview quote that mentioned the conversion of the now Secondus marines into Primaris. I'm a bit torn on the idea though as I like the look and scaling of the Mk X primaris but not the backstory.

If they ultimately replace all existing SM kits with Primaris versions, couldn't you just ignore the fluff and say they are regular oldmarines?

Pariah-Miniatures wrote:
By their own logic special characters and primarchs shouldn’t exist on the table top because they wouldn’t be involved in such small skirmishes and their presence would be extremely rare. GW is drunk

Nah. 5 turn matches are like 30 seconds of real-time combat, essentially. Those "small skirmishes" could easily just be the tip of the spearhead, or one battle out of a thousand raging just a few feet away from each other (aka the board edge).

That said, I totally agree that discriminating against Inquisitors is silly when Custodes and other highly-specialized forces are allowed their own army books.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Another nail in the coffin of old marines. The writing was on the wall as soon as they announced the Adeptus Restartes with 8th edition and I'm actually surprised that it took this long to make good on that pre-release interview quote that mentioned the conversion of the now Secondus marines into Primaris. I'm a bit torn on the idea though as I like the look and scaling of the Mk X primaris but not the backstory.

If they ultimately replace all existing SM kits with Primaris versions, couldn't you just ignore the fluff and say they are regular oldmarines?

Maybe...with some work. Primes could just become the new norms.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Another nail in the coffin of old marines. The writing was on the wall as soon as they announced the Adeptus Restartes with 8th edition and I'm actually surprised that it took this long to make good on that pre-release interview quote that mentioned the conversion of the now Secondus marines into Primaris. I'm a bit torn on the idea though as I like the look and scaling of the Mk X primaris but not the backstory.

If they ultimately replace all existing SM kits with Primaris versions, couldn't you just ignore the fluff and say they are regular oldmarines?

Possibly but that isn't the road GW has taken. If they had simply made a scale change just like they did after the RTB01 switch to 2nd and later 3rd edition plastics then I'd have been all on board. Cawl making new arms and armor to justify the new scale but keeping the rules the same for all would have been my preferred route to introduce them. Instead, we get functional equivalents like intercessors for tactical squads that are not identical beyond superficial similarities (they both have bolt-based rifles). The time to do that was two years ago and not now where people have built armies around the primaris as its not fair to them to switch gears so significantly.

 warboss wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 warboss wrote:
Another nail in the coffin of old marines. The writing was on the wall as soon as they announced the Adeptus Restartes with 8th edition and I'm actually surprised that it took this long to make good on that pre-release interview quote that mentioned the conversion of the now Secondus marines into Primaris. I'm a bit torn on the idea though as I like the look and scaling of the Mk X primaris but not the backstory.

If they ultimately replace all existing SM kits with Primaris versions, couldn't you just ignore the fluff and say they are regular oldmarines?

Possibly but that isn't the road GW has taken. If they had simply made a scale change just like they did after the RTB01 switch to 2nd and later 3rd edition plastics then I'd have been all on board. Cawl making new arms and armor to justify the new scale but keeping the rules the same for all would have been my preferred route to introduce them. Instead, we get functional equivalents like intercessors for tactical squads that are not identical beyond superficial similarities (they both have bolt-based rifles). The time to do that was two years ago and not now where people have built armies around the primaris as its not fair to them to switch gears so significantly.

I am more talking what you yourself could do with fluffing your own army. As of right now, it isn't possible because Intercessors =/= Tactical Squads. Hellblasters =/= Devastators. And so on. But if we reach a point where literal replacements exist for all SM units, I don't see why you couldn't just ignore the Primaris fluff. I don't know if that will ever happen though. As long as oldmarines stuff sells a satisfactory amount, they will likely keep them in production.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Well, if you wanna play 8th then it’s literally the only way right answer right now. You do you.

Managed to ignore everything Yod said, and be a dick about it. Great job.

But to expand on what I said, without necessarily repeating Yod, 'counts-as' is a lousy excuse when it comes to increasing the variety and diversity of forces available in 40K. Would you have been one of the people saying 'Just counts-as!' before AdMech were a thing? Before Deathwatch were a thing? When the Legions went away for a long stretch of time?

40K is a game that has endless potential, and so often this remains untapped because of (quite frankly) boneheaded comments like the ones GW gave about Imperial Agents.