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.

How can you take Assassins or Inquisitors in 9th? I know you can have 1 unit of them in a detachment that has your Warlord (in a patrol, brigade, or battalion,) but if you want more, you need to take a Vanguard detachment (but you don’t need to take HQs, but only 1 of each datasheet).

Do you have to pay 3 CP for the Vanguard Detachment? And if you are limited to 1x per data sheet in this detachment, how do you take advantage of the Acolyte unit? (Which you can make characters, if you have them in units of one).

GW has no idea what they are doing and they just assume their rules work. Execution force for assassins should refund the CP cost but it doesnt.

GW pretty much screwed over inquisitors and assassins, its now an either or thing, and if you want to take acolytes or anything your going to pay the CP tax.

Iv been using an inquisitor + a callidus assassin since witch hunter days, and i cant anymore without either losing my army traits or paying 3cp

I looked at the FAQ and learned nothing. They need an updated FAQ ASAP.

Yes, you would have to pay 3CP to get any of the non-Inquisitor Inquisition units (Jokaero, Acolyte, Daemonhost, etc) without breaking the detachment bonuses in your other detachment. Within that 3CP detachment you can take only one Inquisitor, but up to 3 of any other datasheet, just like normal. In other words, it's completely useless and impractical and nobody would ever do it except for a laugh. All the non-Inquisitor Inquisition forces may as well not exist for competitive purposes.

You can take one Inquisitor OR one Assassin, but not both, in any Imperium detachment. They lied in the PR spin about Pariah to say you could include any Inquisition forces in any Imperium detachment without turning off your detachment rules, but this was false (and is still up on their site, still misleading people). The only thing you can take in a non-Inquisition Imperium detachment is one Inquisitor.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yes, you would have to pay 3CP to get any of the non-Inquisitor Inquisition units (Jokaero, Acolyte, Daemonhost, etc) without breaking the detachment bonuses in your other detachment. Within that 3CP detachment you can take only one Inquisitor, but up to 3 of any other datasheet, just like normal. In other words, it's completely useless and impractical and nobody would ever do it except for a laugh. All the non-Inquisitor Inquisition forces may as well not exist for competitive purposes.

You can take one Inquisitor OR one Assassin, but not both, in any Imperium detachment. They lied in the PR spin about Pariah to say you could include any Inquisition forces in any Imperium detachment without turning off your detachment rules, but this was false (and is still up on their site, still misleading people). The only thing you can take in a non-Inquisition Imperium detachment is one Inquisitor.

Didn't they also say something about taking an inqusitorial patrol detachment? something you cant do since inquisitors dont have troop choices, might be misremembering the article though.


Personally what i think they should have done is something like "If you inquisitor is your warlord in any imperium detachment you can include <keyword> inquisitorial units in that detachment without shutting off army traits, that way its either take the inquisitor by itself in your detachment or make it the warlord to represent it requisitioning a force, letting it take the acolytes and whatever force you want to attach it too without any problems. don't want it to be the warlord but still want the acolytes and what not? then take a seperate detachment..

At this point since GW doesnt want sub factions to be playable we just need a Mercanaries book, like dogs of war for Fantasy, just a big compilation of Unaligned or aligned units that can be taken by imperium / chaos / xenos factions and throw all the minor factions and leave open a design space to add all those cool alien species you read about in the specialist games and their cool tech we never get to see.

They did say you could take an Inquisitorial patrol, but they were laughed off the internet so hard that they actually stealth edited that article to say Vanguard instead.

The false statement that you can take "all Inquisition forces" in Imperium detachments without breaking detachment bonuses is still up there, though, well over a month after I flagged it to them and was told my feedback would be passed on to the warhammer-community team so they could fix it.

 warmaster21 wrote:
GW has no idea what they are doing and they just assume their rules work. Execution force for assassins should refund the CP cost but it doesnt.

GW pretty much screwed over inquisitors and assassins, its now an either or thing, and if you want to take acolytes or anything your going to pay the CP tax.

Iv been using an inquisitor + a callidus assassin since witch hunter days, and i cant anymore without either losing my army traits or paying 3cp

You can get away with paying 2CP to get both an Inquisitor and an Assassin in your army. First, you take a detachment that includes your warlord (must be Patrol, Battalion, or Brigade) which refunds the CP. Add one of the agents to that detachment. Then add a second detachment (preferably a patrol for 2CP), and take the other agent in that detachment. It's basically the same as what you were paying before (2CP to add a single assassin to an army).
Don't really see the issue.

 bullyboy wrote:

 warmaster21 wrote:
GW has no idea what they are doing and they just assume their rules work. Execution force for assassins should refund the CP cost but it doesnt.

GW pretty much screwed over inquisitors and assassins, its now an either or thing, and if you want to take acolytes or anything your going to pay the CP tax.

Iv been using an inquisitor + a callidus assassin since witch hunter days, and i cant anymore without either losing my army traits or paying 3cp

You can get away with paying 2CP to get both an Inquisitor and an Assassin in your army. First, you take a detachment that includes your warlord (must be Patrol, Battalion, or Brigade) which refunds the CP. Add one of the agents to that detachment. Then add a second detachment (preferably a patrol for 2CP), and take the other agent in that detachment. It's basically the same as what you were paying before (2CP to add a single assassin to an army).
Don't really see the issue.

The main issue is assassins break the faction pure bonus when they get brought in. Eisenhorn actually shares this problem.

 bullyboy wrote:


The main issue is assassins break the faction pure bonus when they get brought in. Eisenhorn actually shares this problem.

No they don't. Eisenhorn and Assassins all have the Agents of the Imperium keyword.

Page 35 of Pariah states:

"The inclusion of an Agent of the Imperium does not prevent other units from their Detachment from benefitting from Detachment abilities (e.g. Chapter Tactics, Defenders of Humanity, etc.), and it does not prevent other units from your army from benefitting from abilities that require every model in your army to have that ability (e.g. Combat Doctrines, etc.)

As for Inquisitorial Vanguards: they are fun in Crusade play, because single Acolytes are characters, which means they can take relics and warlord traits, and of course Battle Honours (but they do get these even when you take them as a unit.

Can you still spend the 2CP for Operative Requisition Sanctioned?

I looked through the FAQ, and see nothing saying it has been removed.

I say because my Elite slots are completely full in my Guard Battalion, but would still like to slip an assassin into the army to shore up some weaknesses.

They converted it to a strat to swap our your assassin before the battle. Still costs 2CP, but you only pay it if you actually make a swap. So you can take whatever one you want, and only pay if you want to switch it.

Technically it's broken because the interaction with the 9th rules doesn't work (see goonhammer article for details), which is classic Gee-dubs "designed with 9th in mind!" nonsense, but only the that-guyest of that guys would stop you doing it.

PenitentJake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:


The main issue is assassins break the faction pure bonus when they get brought in. Eisenhorn actually shares this problem.

No they don't. Eisenhorn and Assassins all have the Agents of the Imperium keyword.

Page 35 of Pariah states:

"The inclusion of an Agent of the Imperium does not prevent other units from their Detachment from benefitting from Detachment abilities (e.g. Chapter Tactics, Defenders of Humanity, etc.), and it does not prevent other units from your army from benefitting from abilities that require every model in your army to have that ability (e.g. Combat Doctrines, etc.)

As for Inquisitorial Vanguards: they are fun in Crusade play, because single Acolytes are characters, which means they can take relics and warlord traits, and of course Battle Honours (but they do get these even when you take them as a unit.

That appears to be a misleading RAW situation, many would simply categorize it as fluff to avoid opening such a can of worms. If you take an Assassin or Inquisitor, they break the doctrine of the detachment they are in. It's very simple. Trying to go around this is not going to work. This is just like taking a Commissar in a Tempestus detachment - it breaks the doctrine.

How can it be misleading? It explicitly says it doesn't prevent units from getting Combat Doctrines.

 Slayer6 wrote:


That appears to be a misleading RAW situation, many would simply categorize it as fluff to avoid opening such a can of worms. If you take an Assassin or Inquisitor, they break the doctrine of the detachment they are in. It's very simple. Trying to go around this is not going to work. This is just like taking a Commissar in a Tempestus detachment - it breaks the doctrine.

Utter nonsense. It clearly says it doesn't break such army or detachment rules. And the commissars don't either.

Yeah I dunno why anyone would think taking one inquisitor or one assassin would break doctrine, it specifically says it doesn't.

Now if you took more than one in the detachment, yes, that would break the doctrines.

 Slayer6 wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:


The main issue is assassins break the faction pure bonus when they get brought in. Eisenhorn actually shares this problem.

No they don't. Eisenhorn and Assassins all have the Agents of the Imperium keyword.

Page 35 of Pariah states:

"The inclusion of an Agent of the Imperium does not prevent other units from their Detachment from benefitting from Detachment abilities (e.g. Chapter Tactics, Defenders of Humanity, etc.), and it does not prevent other units from your army from benefitting from abilities that require every model in your army to have that ability (e.g. Combat Doctrines, etc.)

As for Inquisitorial Vanguards: they are fun in Crusade play, because single Acolytes are characters, which means they can take relics and warlord traits, and of course Battle Honours (but they do get these even when you take them as a unit.

That appears to be a misleading RAW situation, many would simply categorize it as fluff to avoid opening such a can of worms. If you take an Assassin or Inquisitor, they break the doctrine of the detachment they are in. It's very simple. Trying to go around this is not going to work. This is just like taking a Commissar in a Tempestus detachment - it breaks the doctrine.

It doesn’t. Commissars didn’t, and they don’t now.

To be fair to the confused unless you're used to how GW writes rules it isn't that obvious. The two rules are directly contradictory, you need to know that GW intended one to take priority over the other or there isn't an answer.

I honestly think the old 3rd edi approach of Daemonhunters, Witchhunters and the eagerly-expected-yet-for-some-reason-never-realized Alienhunters (Would have been Inquisitors with Xeno weapons + Storm Troopers + Death Watch) was the best approach of bringing the =I= into the game.
I still don't understand why they ditched it.

Until GW adds a clause to every single rule citing:

'X rules that modify existing rule Y take precedence'.

Then this situation can can only be used as RAI not RAW. Because in the end, it does come down to 3 things: 1, your opponent; 2, your TO; 3, your own integrity. I used to field an Ordo Minoris Inquisitor and Execution Force to supplement my Scions with Commissars, until this forum enlightened me of my errors. Now the Commissars are in a separate detachment, and the Assassins/Inquisitor is no longer used.

I really have no idea where the confusion is, looking at Inquisition..

one Agent of Imperium in each detachment, this does not change effects of units in the army for things such as Combat Doctrines (states clearly in 2nd bullet point). If it's in a Patrol, Battalion or Brigade, you don't lose any faction bonuses either.

So I take a Battalion of Marines, led by a Captain (warlord). oCP spent here. I add an Inquisitor.
I then add a patrol of Marines, and add the assassin here. It will cost me 2CP for the patrol, but I will not lose Doctrines, and wouldn't lose Super doctrines if the marine chapters matched.

So you can have an assassin and an inquisitor in the same army for only 2CP, and the doctrines etc will depend upon the contents of the rest of the army.
So exactly what has Goonhammer found that contradicts this?

Nothing. You're confusing two different things. The problem Goonhammer identified has to do with the 2CP strat to swap assassins. Technically this doesn't work in 9th, because of the order in which you have to do things in the 9th edition missions.

Now I say “would be” here because currently, the rules for this do not actually work. The mission rules in 9th edition specify that non-random “before the battle” abilities and Stratagems now happen after deployment, which means that if you use the Shadow Assignment Stratagem, it has no effect – the model you’d replace is already on the table. This is obviously stupid and broken and unintended, so my personal recommendation to you is that you make this decisions after choosing a mission, at the same time you’d roll for random abilities under the rules.

https://www.goonhammer.com/9th-edition-faction-focus-assassins/

It's classic Gee-dubs, and I certainly wouldn't try to enforce it against someone else, but technically they are right that the swap assassin strat is broken in 9th.

 Slayer6 wrote:
Until GW adds a clause to every single rule citing:

'X rules that modify existing rule Y take precedence'.

Then this situation can can only be used as RAI not RAW. Because in the end, it does come down to 3 things: 1, your opponent; 2, your TO; 3, your own integrity. I used to field an Ordo Minoris Inquisitor and Execution Force to supplement my Scions with Commissars, until this forum enlightened me of my errors. Now the Commissars are in a separate detachment, and the Assassins/Inquisitor is no longer used.

Why do you think that your Scions cannot have a Commissar in their Detachment? The Greater Good specifically says that Commissars (Officio Prefectus) do not prevent the Scions from gaining a regimental doctrine (page 64).

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Slayer6 wrote:
Until GW adds a clause to every single rule citing:

'X rules that modify existing rule Y take precedence'.

Then this situation can can only be used as RAI not RAW. Because in the end, it does come down to 3 things: 1, your opponent; 2, your TO; 3, your own integrity. I used to field an Ordo Minoris Inquisitor and Execution Force to supplement my Scions with Commissars, until this forum enlightened me of my errors. Now the Commissars are in a separate detachment, and the Assassins/Inquisitor is no longer used.

Why do you think that your Scions cannot have a Commissar in their Detachment? The Greater Good specifically says that Commissars (Officio Prefectus) do not prevent the Scions from gaining a regimental doctrine (page 64).

He’s speaking of the original 8th Edition rules for Militarum Tempestus and how how they interacted with the Advisors & Auxillia rule. You would think that by how it was worded, it was fine to take Advisors and Auxillia units, but the wording was awkward and left it up in the air, until the first Vigilus book, in which it would have been impossible according to that view (that Advisors and Auxillia units break Militarum Tempestus doctrine rules) to make a Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment. This more firmly let us understand that you could take A&A units safely.

 Apple Peel wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:

 Slayer6 wrote:
Until GW adds a clause to every single rule citing:

'X rules that modify existing rule Y take precedence'.

Then this situation can can only be used as RAI not RAW. Because in the end, it does come down to 3 things: 1, your opponent; 2, your TO; 3, your own integrity. I used to field an Ordo Minoris Inquisitor and Execution Force to supplement my Scions with Commissars, until this forum enlightened me of my errors. Now the Commissars are in a separate detachment, and the Assassins/Inquisitor is no longer used.

Why do you think that your Scions cannot have a Commissar in their Detachment? The Greater Good specifically says that Commissars (Officio Prefectus) do not prevent the Scions from gaining a regimental doctrine (page 64).

He’s speaking of the original 8th Edition rules for Militarum Tempestus and how how they interacted with the Advisors & Auxillia rule. You would think that by how it was worded, it was fine to take Advisors and Auxillia units, but the wording was awkward and left it up in the air, until the first Vigilus book, in which it would have been impossible according to that view (that Advisors and Auxillia units break Militarum Tempestus doctrine rules) to make a Tempestus Drop Force Specialist Detachment. This more firmly let us understand that you could take A&A units safely.

I recall those days, but there wasn't much incentive to take an all-Scions detachment so I felt that it was an argument for the argument's sake. I think that GW thought that the questions on the topic were deliberately obtuse, based on their somewhat snippy response in the Vigilus FAQ. Its crystal clear now, so folks should stop trying to muddy the waters.