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.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

So screw Guard and Daemons, I guess?

Gosh, i wish GW made Daemons not dependent on Greater demons, i want my gribblies to be capable on their own

The rules description for the Crusade component on Warcom is a little hard to follow, being a summary. But it is an indicator of the level of detail that went into the creation of the rules.

It looks really solid from what I can piece together, and Kudos to GW for pushing this out in a timely manner- I was beginning to worry that we'd hear nothing more until release week.

 PenitentJake wrote:
The rules description for the Crusade component on Warcom is a little hard to follow, being a summary. But it is an indicator of the level of detail that went into the creation of the rules.

It looks really solid from what I can piece together, and Kudos to GW for pushing this out in a timely manner- I was beginning to worry that we'd hear nothing more until release week.

If we're getting these kinds of rules, I'm assuming release is right around the corner.

Now I'm really hoping they put out some kind of Agents of Chaos book.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 RaptorusRex wrote:

So screw Guard and Daemons, I guess?

Gosh, i wish GW made Daemons not dependent on Greater demons, i want my gribblies to be capable on their own

At least in my casual experience, my Daemons (Nurgle) did fine before I got a GUO.
The Big Stinky Man is definitely worth it, though.

The article about "the Three Named Inquisitors in Codex: Imperial Agents" means that Kamarazov (unsurprisingly) and also Eisenhorn have gone to legends. That probably means no daemonhosts or jokaero.

locarno24 wrote:
The article about "the Three Named Inquisitors in Codex: Imperial Agents" means that Kamarazov (unsurprisingly) and also Eisenhorn have gone to legends. That probably means no daemonhosts or jokaero.

both those options are options for inquisitorial agents rather than standalone units, at least in the index, so their demise is less certain

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:

locarno24 wrote:
The article about "the Three Named Inquisitors in Codex: Imperial Agents" means that Kamarazov (unsurprisingly) and also Eisenhorn have gone to legends. That probably means no daemonhosts or jokaero.

both those options are options for inquisitorial agents rather than standalone units, at least in the index, so their demise is less certain

Neither is included in the Agents box, and neither were plastic. I'd call their demise a metaphysical certitude.

They are no longer options. The Inquisitorial Agents are kind of hilariously bad now.

 LunarSol wrote:
They are no longer options. The Inquisitorial Agents are kind of hilariously bad now.

Yeah, I'm pretty sad with how it all shook out.

The codex is a lot better for army amalgamation now, you can easily throw some Grey Knights in with your Space Marines, or some Sisters in with your guard, or a Death Watch Kill Team with your Custodes, or whatever, that part works a lot better now (and I will assuredly use it at some point.)

However, actually running it as a dedicated Agents army seems to have gotten very watered down. Most of the unique models they could take and things they could do have been cut and just replaced by things from other armies could already do all blended together.

I don't have an issue that they leaned heavily into the soup idea, but too much watering down made it loose its flavour in the process.

I REALLY wish they would have included the Freeblade Knight datasheets here. That's probably my biggest disappointment. Well, after the functionality of the rules.

At least Blood Angels can expect to be top tier for a while.

how do I get the link to the leaked codex?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIQGPVWgDNk

Auspex Tatics linkage

Well, the Kill Team looks good, and once again has actual rules for the Blackshield.

And I don't know where the Inquisition is getting their Rhinos, but they're big enough to cram multiple Chimeras and Blackstars into.

My favorite tech is two Blackstars inside, shooting out from the Firing Deck

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite tech is two Blackstars inside, shooting out from the Firing Deck

Without me having to listen to Auspex, what?
How do you put Blackstars inside a rhino?

ccs wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite tech is two Blackstars inside, shooting out from the Firing Deck

Without me having to listen to Auspex, what?
How do you put Blackstars inside a rhino?

The rhino makes no distinction for infantry, just terminators. Meaning you can put 12 AOI models in them. Which includes blackstars.

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

ccs wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite tech is two Blackstars inside, shooting out from the Firing Deck

Without me having to listen to Auspex, what?
How do you put Blackstars inside a rhino?

The rhino makes no distinction for infantry, just terminators. Meaning you can put 12 AOI models in them. Which includes blackstars.

Yeah, we're just having a bit of fun with what will obviously be a day-one errata.

locarno24 wrote:
The article about "the Three Named Inquisitors in Codex: Imperial Agents" means that Kamarazov (unsurprisingly) and also Eisenhorn have gone to legends.

GW: Hey, how about we integrate FW with our main line, wasting a mountain of money, making site unusable, and creating endless usability and QC problems, just to push a tiny bit more resin sales!
GW clown writer: What's that? I should squat all the FW inquisitors, upgrades, weapons and other resin Inq stuff? Got it!
GW: WC, make an article about studio Inq teams to hype new release. Make sure to include resin FW models like a dozen times and explicitly point that out in text!
GW clown writer: What's that? We already squatted all the FW junk, and Eisenhorn for good measure totally not by mistake thinking he is FW resin too, what else we're supposed to do? Oh, write doubly gak rules to murder whatever is left of the hype, "forget" to include Rogue Traders, IG stuff, rules for made to order and limited edition inquisitors we sold multiple times in last 12 months, 95% of GK and DW armoury, nerf both naval infantry and arbites, then legend random character models we still sell or just stopped selling by throwing darts at new site? Producing book even worse than 7th edition Agents book, videly considered worst codex ever? Say no more, on it!
GW: Wait, why people don't want to buy DW and Inquisition? Must be because they are hated factions, and totally not because Cruddace and Kelly ruined them with their incompetence, eh? Better squat them!

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 ProfSrlojohn wrote:

ccs wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
My favorite tech is two Blackstars inside, shooting out from the Firing Deck

Without me having to listen to Auspex, what?
How do you put Blackstars inside a rhino?

The rhino makes no distinction for infantry, just terminators. Meaning you can put 12 AOI models in them. Which includes blackstars.

Yeah, we're just having a bit of fun with what will obviously be a day-one errata.

They've only had ten editions to avoid making these mistakes.

Humanity has had the written word since 3200 BCE, I too am appalled at a missing word in a book.

 Irbis wrote:

locarno24 wrote:
The article about "the Three Named Inquisitors in Codex: Imperial Agents" means that Kamarazov (unsurprisingly) and also Eisenhorn have gone to legends.

GW: Hey, how about we integrate FW with our main line, wasting a mountain of money, making site unusable, and creating endless usability and QC problems, just to push a tiny bit more resin sales!
GW clown writer: What's that? I should squat all the FW inquisitors, upgrades, weapons and other resin Inq stuff? Got it!
GW: WC, make an article about studio Inq teams to hype new release. Make sure to include resin FW models like a dozen times and explicitly point that out in text!
GW clown writer: What's that? We already squatted all the FW junk, and Eisenhorn for good measure totally not by mistake thinking he is FW resin too, what else we're supposed to do? Oh, write doubly gak rules to murder whatever is left of the hype, "forget" to include Rogue Traders, IG stuff, rules for made to order and limited edition inquisitors we sold multiple times in last 12 months, 95% of GK and DW armoury, nerf both naval infantry and arbites, then legend random character models we still sell or just stopped selling by throwing darts at new site? Producing book even worse than 7th edition Agents book, videly considered worst codex ever? Say no more, on it!
GW: Wait, why people don't want to buy DW and Inquisition? Must be because they are hated factions, and totally not because Cruddace and Kelly ruined them with their incompetence, eh? Better squat them!

they're not just getting rid of FW resin. all the old finecast characters are going as well, which is what both Karry and Eisenhorn were. the whole point about FW here doesn't really land. we also could have assumed that the old finecast models were going, considering that's what happened to space marines, and necrons, and t'au, and orks, and sisters, and so on

i also roll my eyes anytime someone uses "incompetent" as their insult of choice towards game developers. to use another reductive word, it feels like a lazy complaint

From what I'm hearing so far, SoE - and I say this without having read the book, or knowing what their goals for the book were - GW's team are doing a darned good job of at least appearing incompetent.

Especially when you combo what we're hearing of this book alongside "No, you can't use Deathwatch in Boarding Actions, even if they're the sort of scenario a DW Kill Team would thrive in..."

That's why you use house rules in friendly games, our prerequisite for this is any house rule involving particular forces, models and use thereof must make sense within the narrative. Works for us, so DW in boarding actions, why not? Go for it, have fun.

 Dysartes wrote:
From what I'm hearing so far, SoE - and I say this without having read the book, or knowing what their goals for the book were - GW's team are doing a darned good job of at least appearing incompetent.

Especially when you combo what we're hearing of this book alongside "No, you can't use Deathwatch in Boarding Actions, even if they're the sort of scenario a DW Kill Team would thrive in..."

Why can't we?

ccs wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
From what I'm hearing so far, SoE - and I say this without having read the book, or knowing what their goals for the book were - GW's team are doing a darned good job of at least appearing incompetent.

Especially when you combo what we're hearing of this book alongside "No, you can't use Deathwatch in Boarding Actions, even if they're the sort of scenario a DW Kill Team would thrive in..."

Why can't we?

They don't have rules, if I'm reading this correctly.

You could use ordinary Marines and just use Deathwatch Models, I suppose.

Aye, I was meaning book-as-written, no-house-ruling, there's apparently no army list/rules for them to use inside Boarding Actions - because co-ordinating the two books you're releasing at nearly the same time would be...?

 Dysartes wrote:
Aye, I was meaning book-as-written, no-house-ruling, there's apparently no army list/rules for them to use inside Boarding Actions - because co-ordinating the two books you're releasing at nearly the same time would be...?

...not GW's standard operating procedure?

 Dysartes wrote:
From what I'm hearing so far, SoE - and I say this without having read the book, or knowing what their goals for the book were - GW's team are doing a darned good job of at least appearing incompetent.

Especially when you combo what we're hearing of this book alongside "No, you can't use Deathwatch in Boarding Actions, even if they're the sort of scenario a DW Kill Team would thrive in..."

You know what environment a deathwatch kill team thrives in? Kill Team. Where they should have started and stayed as a concept.

So let's say one wanted to include a Deathwatch squad as an ally to a Sister or IG. Force. How should they be equipped? Hammers are good, as are their big guns, but does it make sense to mix these in the same squad?

 Crimson wrote:
So let's say one wanted to include a Deathwatch squad as an ally to a Sister or IG. Force. How should they be equipped? Hammers are good, as are their big guns, but does it make sense to mix these in the same squad?

I'd say no. Either go full-melee (Xenophase sword for the sarge, a Blackshield, 4 hammers and 4 shields, led by a Watch Master) or full-shooty (2 frag cannons, 2 infernus bolters, and your preference of Stalker bolters, shotguns and sarge's combi-weapon, all led by Artemis).

Obviously the melee version is a great option for Guard; Sisters can probably benefit from either.