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.

the rule said that Inquisitors can get into any imperium transport but can I soup transports like a normal land raider into the detachment, or do I need to have another detachment of space marines to take land raiders?
Kind of trying to make a fluffy while not too weak inquisition army.

No you generally need a second detatchment from another imperial faction.

Their is a fw unit the land raider promethius that can be taken in a IQ detatchment

fukafukahokari wrote:
the rule said that Inquisitors can get into any imperium transport but can I soup transports like a normal land raider into the detachment, or do I need to have another detachment of space marines to take land raiders?
Kind of trying to make a fluffy while not too weak inquisition army.

You'll need that other detachment. Inquisition as a faction is pretty much unplayable as GW thinks they should be in Kill Team and not in 40k. Don't expect this to improve.

If you want to bring an Inquisitor just skip all of the retinue and bring that Inquisitor in an auxiliary detachment.

Authority of the Inquisition does not change whether a detachment is legal or not, it only affects the transport rule.

The inquisition is in a very bad spot at the moment, it's really trash on the competitive level. So if you're planning on using a sizeable inquisition army, I guess you're not going for a competitive game.
In this instance, many opponents would be okay to drop the battle brothers rule and allow you to make a mixed imperial detachment.
If you just want to run a fluffy list in a casual setting, most people will be accomodating.

Don't forget the Battle Brothers rule is only for Matched play. If you want to use non-supported factions, play Narrative play.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget the Battle Brothers rule is only for Matched play. If you want to use non-supported factions, play Narrative play.

Narrative play isn't the same as playing matched play without the Battle Brothers rule though. It's usually easier to find someone who is willing to play with a simple house rule than to find someone willing to switch to the narrative play ruleset, especially as that uses power level and doesn't have eg the rule of one for stratagems and psychic powers.

fresus wrote:
The inquisition is in a very bad spot at the moment, it's really trash on the competitive level. So if you're planning on using a sizeable inquisition army, I guess you're not going for a competitive game.
In this instance, many opponents would be okay to drop the battle brothers rule and allow you to make a mixed imperial detachment.
If you just want to run a fluffy list in a casual setting, most people will be accomodating.

I disagree (i had a good tourney placeing last year with an AM/ knights/IQ list last year coteaz +3 acolytes with storm bolters. Sure as a pure army they don't work but as a tertiary detatchment the ability to deny overwatch can be priceless

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget the Battle Brothers rule is only for Matched play. If you want to use non-supported factions, play Narrative play.

Narrative play isn't the same as playing matched play without the Battle Brothers rule though. It's usually easier to find someone who is willing to play with a simple house rule than to find someone willing to switch to the narrative play ruleset, especially as that uses power level and doesn't have eg the rule of one for stratagems and psychic powers.

Narrative and Open play can have whatever rules you want it to. Use all the Matched rules except those you agree not to. No one is forcing you to use PL.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget the Battle Brothers rule is only for Matched play. If you want to use non-supported factions, play Narrative play.

Narrative play isn't the same as playing matched play without the Battle Brothers rule though. It's usually easier to find someone who is willing to play with a simple house rule than to find someone willing to switch to the narrative play ruleset, especially as that uses power level and doesn't have eg the rule of one for stratagems and psychic powers.

Narrative and Open play can have whatever rules you want it to. Use all the Matched rules except those you agree not to. No one is forcing you to use PL.

Sure, but I can do that with removing one thing from matched play, or by adding multiple things to narrative play to make it matched play minus the battle Brothers thing. Why would you do it like that if that's way more complicated?

The rulebook specifically says that you can use points in a Narrative Play game rather than Power Levels, so you're not really "adding" anything there.

Other than that, the only "rule" you need is "don't be a dick". It can actually be pretty liberating and fun to play a narrative game against someone with the same mindset.

But that said, yes, if you and your opponent agree you could always house rule out the Battle Brothers rule. As you say, it may end up easier to convince people to play like this.

 Cheexsta wrote:
The rulebook specifically says that you can use points in a Narrative Play game rather than Power Levels, so you're not really "adding" anything there.

Other than that, the only "rule" you need is "don't be a dick". It can actually be pretty liberating and fun to play a narrative game against someone with the same mindset.

But that said, yes, if you and your opponent agree you could always house rule out the Battle Brothers rule. As you say, it may end up easier to convince people to play like this.

To get to "Matched Play minus Battle Brothers" from Narrative Play you need to add more than just one thing. That's the entirety of my point.

And it's kinda sad that people think it's fine to be a dick just because it's matched play, apparently...

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget the Battle Brothers rule is only for Matched play. If you want to use non-supported factions, play Narrative play.

Narrative play isn't the same as playing matched play without the Battle Brothers rule though. It's usually easier to find someone who is willing to play with a simple house rule than to find someone willing to switch to the narrative play ruleset, especially as that uses power level and doesn't have eg the rule of one for stratagems and psychic powers.

Narrative and Open play can have whatever rules you want it to. Use all the Matched rules except those you agree not to. No one is forcing you to use PL.

Sure, but I can do that with removing one thing from matched play, or by adding multiple things to narrative play to make it matched play minus the battle Brothers thing. Why would you do it like that if that's way more complicated?

So do that? It’s what my group does.

I don’t understand the issue. If two players decide it’s more fun to use Matched Play with a house rule, do it. Open Play can mean anything from “all Matched rules but one” to “homebrew characters and PL and weird alliances”. Narrative Play can mean ‘Matched Play without the Battle Brothers rule’, despite what’s said above. The whole point is that Open/Narrative is up to you... it’s whatever you like. People on Dakka get allergic to those words and any mention of a game that isn’t 2K/Matched/Beta/organised play restrictions for some reason. Don’t worry about labels and use the rules that make the game fun for you and your opponent.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Don't forget the Battle Brothers rule is only for Matched play. If you want to use non-supported factions, play Narrative play.

Narrative play isn't the same as playing matched play without the Battle Brothers rule though. It's usually easier to find someone who is willing to play with a simple house rule than to find someone willing to switch to the narrative play ruleset, especially as that uses power level and doesn't have eg the rule of one for stratagems and psychic powers.

Narrative and Open play can have whatever rules you want it to. Use all the Matched rules except those you agree not to. No one is forcing you to use PL.

Sure, but I can do that with removing one thing from matched play, or by adding multiple things to narrative play to make it matched play minus the battle Brothers thing. Why would you do it like that if that's way more complicated?

So do that? It’s what my group does.

I don’t understand the issue. If two players decide it’s more fun to use Matched Play with a house rule, do it. Open Play can mean anything from “all Matched rules but one” to “homebrew characters and PL and weird alliances”. Narrative Play can mean ‘Matched Play without the Battle Brothers rule’, despite what’s said above. The whole point is that Open/Narrative is up to you... it’s whatever you like. People on Dakka get allergic to those words and any mention of a game that isn’t 2K/Matched/Beta/organised play restrictions for some reason. Don’t worry about labels and use the rules that make the game fun for you and your opponent.

So why are we discussing this then? That was my suggestion from the start, and you decided to jump in with a " use narrative", or did I misunderstand you there?

Dial it down a tad, eh. I didn’t “jump in” with anything confrontational so let’s not make it that way. I offered advice and then expanded on some misunderstandings around modes of play. Don’t assume everything is a rebuttal or argument.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Dial it down a tad, eh. I didn’t “jump in” with anything confrontational so let’s not make it that way. I offered advice and then expanded on some misunderstandings around modes of play. Don’t assume everything is a rebuttal or argument.

Im not attacking you or anything, I'm just wondering why you're advising me to do the thing I suggested to do. It's a bit confusing to be honest. And you expanding on it was simply reiterating my initial argument as to why I prefer doing that to what BCB suggested. Thank you for the clarification on PL/Points in Narrative Play though - I thought Narrative used Power Level unless you houserule it to (what I thought was part of the matched play rules) use points.

Uh guys?

This is a you make da call thread about the 'Authority of the Inquisition' rule, right?

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
Uh guys?

This is a you make da call thread about the 'Authority of the Inquisition' rule, right?

Indeed. Please try and steer the conversation in that direction.